homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » What do Theologians know? (Page 8)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: What do Theologians know?
Rossweisse

High Church Valkyrie
# 2349

 - Posted      Profile for Rossweisse     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
It is clear that many people believe that to be so, but, well, I will leave it there.

That's probably for the best.

--------------------
I'm not dead yet.

Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Ikkyu
Shipmate
# 15207

 - Posted      Profile for Ikkyu   Email Ikkyu   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jamat:
Ontological Argument

Something to think about Susan.

Something to think about Jamat
SMBC on the Ontological Argument

Posts: 434 | From: Arizona | Registered: Oct 2009  |  IP: Logged
Rossweisse

High Church Valkyrie
# 2349

 - Posted      Profile for Rossweisse     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I thought I had made that quite clear in the OP.

Alas, no.

[ 03. October 2015, 02:17: Message edited by: Rossweisse ]

--------------------
I'm not dead yet.

Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
SusanDoris

Incurable Optimist
# 12618

 - Posted      Profile for SusanDoris   Author's homepage   Email SusanDoris   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
What I (and others) have been arguing on this thread is that concepts of God can be studied in an objective way and that it is useful to do this, whether God exists or not.

The number of people arguing for God does not increase its liklihood.
The concept of God is an entirely human one, and it has gradually built and changed over thousands of years. Any study of these concepts is a study of human thinking, human nature, being in more recent times labelled psychology, etc.

--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.

Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
SusanDoris

Incurable Optimist
# 12618

 - Posted      Profile for SusanDoris   Author's homepage   Email SusanDoris   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rossweisse:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I thought I had made that quite clear in the OP.

Alas, no.
The OP mentioned a video then said:
quote:
However, at one point he asked what do Theologians know - i.e. really know - about God.
... ... So I tentatively pose the question here ... ...

I do not see ambiguity there! If you do, could you please say why?
Thank you.

--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.

Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
SusanDoris

Incurable Optimist
# 12618

 - Posted      Profile for SusanDoris   Author's homepage   Email SusanDoris   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Jamat

Thank you for the link. I have listened to part of it, but since, for a start, he was an 11th/12th century man, I wonder how his views would change were he alive today with access to the wealth of factual information available. Ahead of his time he most probably was and there is of course wisdom which always carries through whatever beliefs there are.

--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.

Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528

 - Posted      Profile for Lamb Chopped   Email Lamb Chopped   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
What I (and others) have been arguing on this thread is that concepts of God can be studied in an objective way and that it is useful to do this, whether God exists or not.

The number of people arguing for God does not increase its liklihood.
The concept of God is an entirely human one, and it has gradually built and changed over thousands of years. Any study of these concepts is a study of human thinking, human nature, being in more recent times labelled psychology, etc.

And where, pray tell, are you going to find a non-human concept of anything, let alone God? I don't think the dolphins, etc. are advanced enough for that sort of thinking.

Or do you think a concept can exist without a mind to think it?

As for number of believers influencing likelihood of truth, I think you know very well that has nothing to do with what LeRoc was saying. No need to drag red herrings across the trail.

--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!

Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528

 - Posted      Profile for Lamb Chopped   Email Lamb Chopped   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Jamat

Thank you for the link. I have listened to part of it, but since, for a start, he was an 11th/12th century man, I wonder how his views would change were he alive today with access to the wealth of factual information available. Ahead of his time he most probably was and there is of course wisdom which always carries through whatever beliefs there are.

I believe the term for this is "chronological snobbery." The ontological argument, whatever you may think of it, is probably the single least time-bound argument in all theology.

I haven't a clue what to think of it myself, but I'm not going to dismiss it on the grounds that it's old.

--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!

Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Jack o' the Green
Shipmate
# 11091

 - Posted      Profile for Jack o' the Green   Email Jack o' the Green   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Jamat

Thank you for the link. I have listened to part of it, but since, for a start, he was an 11th/12th century man, I wonder how his views would change were he alive today with access to the wealth of factual information available. Ahead of his time he most probably was and there is of course wisdom which always carries through whatever beliefs there are.

I believe the term for this is "chronological snobbery." The ontological argument, whatever you may think of it, is probably the single least time-bound argument in all theology.

I haven't a clue what to think of it myself, but I'm not going to dismiss it on the grounds that it's old.

The Ontological Argument may have originated with Anselm then, but it has been discussed, debated and reformulated up to the present day e.g. by Norman Malcolm and the mathematician Kurt Godel using modal logic.
Posts: 3121 | From: Lancashire, England | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Jack o' the Green
Shipmate
# 11091

 - Posted      Profile for Jack o' the Green   Email Jack o' the Green   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
What I (and others) have been arguing on this thread is that concepts of God can be studied in an objective way and that it is useful to do this, whether God exists or not.

The number of people arguing for God does not increase its liklihood.
The concept of God is an entirely human one, and it has gradually built and changed over thousands of years. Any study of these concepts is a study of human thinking, human nature, being in more recent times labelled psychology, etc.

The concept of God may have changed over the centuries, but a concept isn't the same as the 'reality in itself'. It is possible to draw up a fairly good concept of God (often referred to as 'philosophical theism'), which is common to representative thinkers within the major religious traditions.
Posts: 3121 | From: Lancashire, England | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
Its just that the description of what they do describes something that seems pretty useless if what you are interested in is "God". Not Sociology of religion, not textual studies of the Bible not cultural studies but "God".

Sociology of religion is I think at least relevant as the effects of being interested in God.

But if you take Buddhist philosophy, it won't help you know anything about enlightenment, if I understand correctly. It can talk about human life as suffering and in need of enlightenment. It can say what enlightenment isn't, which might remove misconceptions that are getting in your way. But to actually know about enlightenment you have to practice Buddhism.
God I think is similar.

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:

The concept of God is an entirely human one, and it has gradually built and changed over thousands of years. Any study of these concepts is a study of human thinking, human nature, being in more recent times labelled psychology, etc.

Yes, I would put theology in one of those subsets, the study of human thinking about God.

I wonder how many go back a step and deeply study human thinking about the existence of God? Human development of the concept 'God'? It would make sense to do so. But going too deeply into such studies would bring them into anthropology and evolution and possibly shake some conservative Christian's faith so much that they wouldn't want to go there.

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
Alisdair
Shipmate
# 15837

 - Posted      Profile for Alisdair   Email Alisdair   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I wonder if SusanDoris has considered the implications of the possibility that if 'God is Love' (as so simply put by John, 1John 4.8), then it is absolutely essential that we have absolutely no way of empirically proving/defining 'God'.

This has already been touched on in this thread. SD's original question is based on a fundamental category error when it comes to describing/experiencing 'God'. The box labelled 'What theologians [read 'human beings'] actually know about God.' will, and must, remain defiantly empty, and for very good reasons---we are not 'machines', we are loved, and we are set free, as the beloved always must be if they truly are loved.

Posts: 334 | From: Washed up in England | Registered: Aug 2010  |  IP: Logged
leo
Shipmate
# 1458

 - Posted      Profile for leo   Author's homepage   Email leo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
theologists

What's a theoloGIST?
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
SusanDoris: The number of people arguing for God does not increase its liklihood.
LOL, you're not only moving the goalposts, you have them permanently strapped to your back, carrying them all around the pitch with a little detour along the city mall.

If you think I was trying to make an argument by numbers here, I'm not the one who's going to be able to get this idea out of your head.

quote:
SusanDoris: The concept of God is an entirely human one, and it has gradually built and changed over thousands of years. Any study of these concepts is a study of human thinking, human nature, being in more recent times labelled psychology, etc.
It's perfectly OK for you to believe that. Really, it is.

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alisdair:
The box labelled 'What theologians [read 'human beings'] actually know about God.' will, and must, remain defiantly empty, and for very good reasons---we are not 'machines', we are loved, and we are set free, as the beloved always must be if they truly are loved.

Nah.

My dogs are truly loved, but there is no way I can set them free - they would not be safe. They are totally dependent on me for everything.

If we depend on God for everything, why should he 'set us free'?

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110

 - Posted      Profile for Barnabas62   Email Barnabas62   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

I wonder how many go back a step and deeply study human thinking about the existence of God? Human development of the concept 'God'? It would make sense to do so. But going too deeply into such studies would bring them into anthropology and evolution and possibly shake some conservative Christian's faith so much that they wouldn't want to go there.

You might find this interesting.

It's not the full book (which I've got at home and reckon to be a good and informative read) but there is quite a lot there to get your teeth into. The intro tells you that it's written by an agnostic ex-nun.

--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?

Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
SusanDoris

Incurable Optimist
# 12618

 - Posted      Profile for SusanDoris   Author's homepage   Email SusanDoris   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
theologists

What's a theoloGIST?
A mistake - and I think you will concede that I try to make sure that typos do not occur too often! [Smile]

Have to go out for a while now - back later.

--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.

Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Ikkyu: The more I think about this the more I appreciate my uncertainties. I used to find not knowing rather upsetting. These days not knowing seems
to open more doors for me.
Only Don't Know

That's a great position to be in. And thank you for posting that link.

The article you linked to asks an interesting question: "Socrates' don't know, Bodhidharma's don't know, and Seung Sahn's don't know - are they the same or different?" This question compares different concepts with each other, without worrying too much whether they refer to something real or not. That is exactly what I've been talking about on this thread.

quote:
Originally posted by Ikkyu:
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

Having a conversation with someone who is also unsure about God is much more helpful. Of course it is.

I agree. I think its also helpful for those who are too certain about God.
Are you including me in that? [Smile]

Maybe I come over as being too certain about God on this thread. In that case I'm sorry; that isn't what I'm trying to convey. To me, this thread is mostly about Theology, much less about God. In fact, I've been avoiding discussing God on this thread, wanting to restrict my discussion to Theology here.

I am very certain that SusanDoris is wrong in her ideas about Theology. That's pretty basic: you only need to immerse yourself in Theology for a couple of days to find out that what she says about it is absolute bull.

But me being certain that she is wrong about Theology isn't necessarily the same as me being certain about God.

Coming back to your statement, I don't know if you'll believe me but I do have rather a lot of conversations with people who are uncertain about God, with agnosts, Atheists and people from different faiths than mine. I find these conversations very enriching.

Is my discussion with SusanDoris helpful for my faith? At a certain level, it isn't. I admit the reason why I'm having these discussions with her has much more to do with looking at it from a communications angle than from a faith point of view. The main question I'm trying to dive into in these discussions is: is it possible to have a meaningful discussion with someone who's unaware that she isn't using logic to string her arguments together?

The jury is still out on that one, but so far I suspect that the answer to this question is No. This is the reason why I'm trying to approach this from different angles, to see what happens. In a sense, she is my laboratory mouse. I'm sure she'll appreciate this from a scientific point of view [Smile]

But I have to admit that this happens on a rather intellectual level for me; so far these discussions haven't really touched my faith.

There is one exception though, and by coincidence this is happening on this thread (after all discussions I've had with her on previous threads). I'm starting to get a better appreciation of how important her Atheism is for her on an emotional level. I guess I've realised this before, but somehow it has hit home for me more on this thread, I don't know why.

Appreciating this and having respect for the importance her Atheism has for her is important for me, in a way that relates to my faith. So I guess that in this sense, these discussions have brought something to me. (I don't think this will stop me from making fun of her arguments when they're really ridiculous though [Smile] )

FWIW, I find the discussion I'm having with you rather useful. Once again, it has pointed out to me that I may have blind spots, and that I may come over as (or even be) more certain about God than I'd like to be. It's always good to realise that. So thank you for that.

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Alisdair
Shipmate
# 15837

 - Posted      Profile for Alisdair   Email Alisdair   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
If we depend on God for everything, why should he 'set us free'? - Boogie

Well, I gues that depends on your understanding of 'freedom' in the context of Love. I have done my best to set my children 'free': I have given them what I know of life, God, love, but I am trying to let them go to make their own choices about these things, rather than be compelled/manipulated into being merely a projection of myself.

We seem to rather have a tendency to try and make God a projection of ourselves. The evidence is that this tends to go badly.

Experience is a great teacher, but sometimes, with a little humility, we can learn a lot by watch and listening to what others have already learned, and maybe also from the source has to give to us directly.

But then 'the source' perhaps comes to us in humility, as a servant, glory hidden lest we should be terrified and only respond out of fear.

[ 03. October 2015, 09:56: Message edited by: Alisdair ]

Posts: 334 | From: Washed up in England | Registered: Aug 2010  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alisdair:
quote:
If we depend on God for everything, why should he 'set us free'? - Boogie

Well, I gues that depends on your understanding of 'freedom' in the context of Love. I have done my best to set my children 'free': I have given them what I know of life, God, love, but I am trying to let them go to make their own choices about these things, rather than be compelled/manipulated into being merely a projection of myself.

Yes, me too - very much so.

But, unlike my kids, my dog could not be brought to independence in that way.

And we can never be un-dependent on God (as it's God we rely on for absolutely everything) so I still have the question 'Why set us free?' We are not free. We have something of an illusion of freedom, but that's all it is. If God loves us he does not have to set us free, he just needs to be as kind as it's possible to be to us (not indulgent, kind).

Hmmm ... this is not really consistent with Susan's topic. I will try to do a new OP for a new thread so as not to derail further [Smile]

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
SusanDoris

Incurable Optimist
# 12618

 - Posted      Profile for SusanDoris   Author's homepage   Email SusanDoris   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
And where, pray tell, are you going to find a non-human concept of anything, let alone God?

I wonder how you would answer your own question here? Human concepts of God can be studied with a resulting increase in knowledge and understanding of human character and behaviour.
quote:
Or do you think a concept can exist without a mind to think it?
No; do you? Dolphins and whales may well have concepts but we will only know that when there is a far more sophisticated ability to understand their brains.
quote:
As for number of believers influencing likelihood of truth, I think you know very well that has nothing to do with what LeRoc was saying. No need to drag red herrings across the trail.
My OP question was clear. There has been no objective fact about God - or any other god from ancient Sumerian, through Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Indian, Chinese, Polynesian, etc. The one to which I referred was the one believed in by Christians. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I think it is others who have brought in the red herrings. Not that that mattered, because, and I repeat, I have learnt a lot during this thread.

--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.

Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
SusanDoris

Incurable Optimist
# 12618

 - Posted      Profile for SusanDoris   Author's homepage   Email SusanDoris   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
LambChopped and Jack o'the Green
]

When it comes to Philosophy and its vocabulary, I acknowledge that I am out of my depth. I once bought a book called 'Philosophy for Idiots' or something like that - I didn't get very far with that either!

--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.

Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
SusanDoris

Incurable Optimist
# 12618

 - Posted      Profile for SusanDoris   Author's homepage   Email SusanDoris   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jack o' the Green:
The concept of God may have changed over the centuries, but a concept isn't the same as the 'reality in itself'. It is possible to draw up a fairly good concept of God (often referred to as 'philosophical theism'), which is common to representative thinkers within the major religious traditions.

Sounds very reasonable and could well be a good way of teaching the young how our ancestors thought and how, therefore, history has been what it is. Such teaching would not teach that any god is factual though.

--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.

Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
SusanDoris

Incurable Optimist
# 12618

 - Posted      Profile for SusanDoris   Author's homepage   Email SusanDoris   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alisdair:
I wonder if SusanDoris has considered the implications of the possibility that if...

It's that little word that is the stumbling block, isn't it?! Thank you for the question though. I much prefer to think of love as an increasingly well understood emotion with many aspects which have continuously evolved.

--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.

Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
SusanDoris

Incurable Optimist
# 12618

 - Posted      Profile for SusanDoris   Author's homepage   Email SusanDoris   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
SusanDoris: The number of people arguing for God does not increase its liklihood.
LOL, you're not only moving the goalposts, you have them permanently strapped to your back, carrying them all around the pitch with a little detour along the city mall.

If you think I was trying to make an argument by numbers here, I'm not the one who's going to be able to get this idea out of your head.

Please do not give it a second's thought!

--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.

Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
Jack o' the Green
Shipmate
# 11091

 - Posted      Profile for Jack o' the Green   Email Jack o' the Green   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

I wonder how many go back a step and deeply study human thinking about the existence of God? Human development of the concept 'God'? It would make sense to do so. But going too deeply into such studies would bring them into anthropology and evolution and possibly shake some conservative Christian's faith so much that they wouldn't want to go there.

You might find this interesting.

It's not the full book (which I've got at home and reckon to be a good and informative read) but there is quite a lot there to get your teeth into. The intro tells you that it's written by an agnostic ex-nun.

It's also available on audio CD from (amongst other places) Amazon.

[ 03. October 2015, 13:30: Message edited by: Jack o' the Green ]

Posts: 3121 | From: Lancashire, England | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Jack o' the Green
Shipmate
# 11091

 - Posted      Profile for Jack o' the Green   Email Jack o' the Green   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by Jack o' the Green:
The concept of God may have changed over the centuries, but a concept isn't the same as the 'reality in itself'. It is possible to draw up a fairly good concept of God (often referred to as 'philosophical theism'), which is common to representative thinkers within the major religious traditions.

Sounds very reasonable and could well be a good way of teaching the young how our ancestors thought and how, therefore, history has been what it is. Such teaching would not teach that any god is factual though.
No, but the concept of God within that tradition is inextricably tied to the main arguments for God's existence including the Ontological and Cosmological arguments.
Posts: 3121 | From: Lancashire, England | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
SusanDoris

Incurable Optimist
# 12618

 - Posted      Profile for SusanDoris   Author's homepage   Email SusanDoris   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Le Roc: To me, this thread is mostly about Theology, much less about God.
May I suggest, then, that you start a new topic? [Smile]
quote:
In fact, I've been avoiding discussing God on this thread, wanting to restrict my discussion to Theology here.
I, however, was more interested in facts.
quote:
… (after all discussions I've had with her on previous threads). I'm starting to get a better appreciation of how important her Atheism is for her on an emotional level.
I must correct you there. Discussions, both here and on a couple of other forums, are important to me because my degree of blindnesss closes off quite a few pursuits I would have done otherwise. If I still had good sight, I’d be an atheist, yes, but I am always aware that if there is going to be a change in world thinking about god beliefs, then it is going to be very slow and in my remaining years I, personally, can only drop the smallest pebble in the ocean. The subject does not crop up in any other part of my life except occasionally in discussion with my similarly thinking neighbour next door.

--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.

Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338

 - Posted      Profile for cliffdweller     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
My OP question was clear. There has been no objective fact about God - or any other god from ancient Sumerian, through Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Indian, Chinese, Polynesian, etc. The one to which I referred was the one believed in by Christians. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I think it is others who have brought in the red herrings.

Kinda have to if this conversation is to continue. As has been pointed out many times, it gets tiresome for us to agree with you point over and over again merely to have you repeat it louder and longer time and time again. So we wanted to move the conversation along. In retrospect, it would have been better to kill this thread or move it to dead horses and start anew, rather than continue this endless self-reinforcing cycle of futility.


quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Not that that mattered, because, and I repeat, I have learnt a lot during this thread.

Yet, when asked, you were unable to name a single one of those things you have learned.

--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner

Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Jack o' the Green
Shipmate
# 11091

 - Posted      Profile for Jack o' the Green   Email Jack o' the Green   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
Sounds very reasonable and could well be a good way of teaching the young how our ancestors thought and how, therefore, history has been what it is.

Not just our ancestors!
Posts: 3121 | From: Lancashire, England | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649

 - Posted      Profile for Raptor Eye     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
The number of people arguing for God does not increase its liklihood.
The concept of God is an entirely human one, and it has gradually built and changed over thousands of years. Any study of these concepts is a study of human thinking, human nature, being in more recent times labelled psychology, etc.

Of course it does increase the likelihood of the existence of God if more rather than less people express their consciousness of God's presence. If only a few did, the likelihood of their imagining it would surely increase.

God is not a human concept, rather the conception of human beings is of God. We have talked about God since dot, and we still do, because the existence of God is a fact. Human thinking changes, our insights into psychology, etc change, but God doesn't change.

--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10

Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011  |  IP: Logged
Jengie jon

Semper Reformanda
# 273

 - Posted      Profile for Jengie jon   Author's homepage   Email Jengie jon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
SusanDoris

You realise the corrallory of that, the number of people arguing that God does not exist, does not change whether he exists or not?

Actually there is an argument for God based on probability but it is largely not accepted by theologians. The problem is it assumes that you can put probabilities on the various arguments for the existence of God and by adding them together get certainty. This is not how probability works.

Jengie

--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge

Back to my blog

Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
SusanDoris

Incurable Optimist
# 12618

 - Posted      Profile for SusanDoris   Author's homepage   Email SusanDoris   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
SusanDoris

You realise the corrallory of that, the number of people arguing that God does not exist, does not change whether he exists or not?

Yes, of course, that is logical as both believers and non-believers must allow for the possibility that evidence may be found which proves them wrong. It is not a 50/50 chance though is it? After many thousand of years the believers' assertions and claims are all based on subjective personal experience,and non-believers' confidence is based on a total lack of facts about any god which has ever been worshipped or believed in.
quote:
Actually there is an argument for God based on probability but it is largely not accepted by theologians. The problem is it assumes that you can put probabilities on the various arguments for the existence of God and by adding them together get certainty.
A strong point in favour of theologians, I feel! [Smile]


.

[ 04. October 2015, 10:41: Message edited by: SusanDoris ]

--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.

Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
Jengie jon

Semper Reformanda
# 273

 - Posted      Profile for Jengie jon   Author's homepage   Email Jengie jon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Susan Doris

I am among the believers who hold that you will never find absolute evidence for God's Existence because to talk of God's existing is a category mistake. Existence depends on God, not God on existence. It is like asking "what time is coal?"

Jengie

--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge

Back to my blog

Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649

 - Posted      Profile for Raptor Eye     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Yes, I would put theology in one of those subsets, the study of human thinking about God.

I wonder how many go back a step and deeply study human thinking about the existence of God? Human development of the concept 'God'? It would make sense to do so. But going too deeply into such studies would bring them into anthropology and evolution and possibly shake some conservative Christian's faith so much that they wouldn't want to go there.

It is not the case that theologians avoid any aspect of God that has been recorded (and after all, what do we know about anything other than what others have recorded?). In fact, Christian theology is so challenging, particularly when studying the scriptures, that some struggle with a faith that has latched on to any certainties. Some lose their faith, for others it grows stronger, depending upon how ready we are to be open minded and to ask questions, while holding on to faith.

--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10

Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:

I am among the believers who hold that you will never find absolute evidence for God's Existence because to talk of God's existing is a category mistake. Existence depends on God, not God on existence. It is like asking "what time is coal?"

What about Roman/Greek/Hindu gods? What does their existence depend on?

Have you read 'Small Gods' by Terry Pratchett? His gods got smaller and smaller as they lost believers. The Great God Om became so small he had to inhabit a small turtle - as he only had one True Believer - Brutha.

It's a great tale which makes you think.

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
Jengie jon

Semper Reformanda
# 273

 - Posted      Profile for Jengie jon   Author's homepage   Email Jengie jon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Their existence depends on God as does all existence. If you pushed me I would say that God Supra-exists.

Sorry there is no single category called existence. A fact I have known since at least the age of three. God certainly does not fit into existence in the normal sense. Hindu, Roman, Greek, Egyptian and Norse gods do exists at least in the sense that they are the products of a culture.

Now answer me this do Hindus have a god or gods? My understanding is the answer is "yes".

Jengie

--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge

Back to my blog

Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Boogie

Boogie on down!
# 13538

 - Posted      Profile for Boogie     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
Their existence depends on God as does all existence. If you pushed me I would say that God Supra-exists.

I know what you mean, I believe in God and I certainly can't point to him/her. I think God is the 'glue' which holds the whole caboodle (life/universe/everything) together.

But why can't we point to that glue, why is it so elusive? Just because it pre-exists, supra-exists, whatever. Why is faith needed to 'know' him/her/it?

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged
LeRoc

Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216

 - Posted      Profile for LeRoc     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Boogie: But why can't we point to that glue
That would be boring.

--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)

Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
SusanDoris

Incurable Optimist
# 12618

 - Posted      Profile for SusanDoris   Author's homepage   Email SusanDoris   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:

I am among the believers who hold that you will never find absolute evidence for God's Existence because to talk of God's existing is a category mistake. Existence depends on God, not God on existence. It is like asking "what time is coal?"

What about Roman/Greek/Hindu gods? What does their existence depend on?
Ever and always on human imagination, isn't it?
quote:
Have you read 'Small Gods' by Terry Pratchett? His gods got smaller and smaller as they lost believers. The Great God Om became so small he had to inhabit a small turtle - as he only had one True Believer - Brutha.

It's a great tale which makes you think.

Ah, yes, such a clever man. I'm in the process of re-reading many of the earlier and middle ones, on talking books, and at present I'm on 'Thief of Time', having just finished 'The Truth'.

--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.

Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
Jay-Emm
Shipmate
# 11411

 - Posted      Profile for Jay-Emm     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Boogie:
[qb] Yes, I would put theology in one of those subsets, the study of human thinking about God.

I wonder how many go back a step and deeply study human thinking about the existence of God? Human development of the concept 'God'? It would make sense to do so. But going too deeply into such studies would bring them into anthropology and evolution and possibly shake some conservative Christian's faith so much that they wouldn't want to go there.

Isn't the 19thC JEPD* theory pretty much an outworking of theologians doing precisely that.
Personally (speaking from lay ignorance) at the extremes it seems to treat people as too 'pure' and have too nice a story of progress and be a bit circular.** But regardless people have clearly looked.

Also comparative theology is totally a thing. I don't know how it works.

*basically trying to separate and reconstruct the original texts based on what words and styles they used.

**though just like Biology has moved on a bit from Lamark, the queen of the sciences has too. And so this prob is very naive criticism.

Posts: 1643 | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The idea of the glue, mentioned above, is interesting. But some atheists are trying to conceive of God as a thing, an item in the universe. That doesn't work, which is maybe why they postulate it. Straw man, really.

But the glue idea reminds me of some Zen teachers, who would ask, who is the person with no name, who inhabits the present moment? Quick, quick, answer!

Of course, an intellectual answer would get you sent off for bread and water for a month, or the like.

To ask what facts theologians know about God is stacking the deck, really. Or it's putting your conclusion right there at the beginning, because the atheist is itching to say, ain't no such thing. Yeah, yeah, but do you want to have a real discussion or just massage your own prejudices?

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
SusanDoris

Incurable Optimist
# 12618

 - Posted      Profile for SusanDoris   Author's homepage   Email SusanDoris   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The idea of the glue, mentioned above, is interesting. But some atheists are trying to conceive of God as a thing, an item in the universe.

Are you thinking of any specific atheists.
(When I was a child, I thought that everyone thought of God as I did, an invisible spirit with a voice.)

--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.

Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The idea of the glue, mentioned above, is interesting. But some atheists are trying to conceive of God as a thing, an item in the universe.

Are you thinking of any specific atheists.
(When I was a child, I thought that everyone thought of God as I did, an invisible spirit with a voice.)

Well, you. You have been talking about objective knowledge of God, but this can only be applied to empirical things or facts in the universe. For example, can I have an objective knowledge of the present moment? I doubt it, since there is no empirical way of describing the present.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
SusanDoris

Incurable Optimist
# 12618

 - Posted      Profile for SusanDoris   Author's homepage   Email SusanDoris   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quetzalcoatl

Thank you for reply! However, you did use the phrase some atheists, so I just thought I'd ask! [Smile]

--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.

Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
quetzalcoatl

Thank you for reply! However, you did use the phrase some atheists, so I just thought I'd ask! [Smile]

You don't do replies with actual content, do you.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
hosting/

You like flirting with commandment infringements, don't you?

/hosting

--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy

Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Rossweisse

High Church Valkyrie
# 2349

 - Posted      Profile for Rossweisse     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I, however, was more interested in facts.


I'm not seeing that, not at all. I fear you're just trolling here.

I do think, however, that you're enjoying the attention - and the time that all these people are putting into answering questions that can, by definition, never be answered to your satisfaction.

Hasn't this thread run its course?

[ 05. October 2015, 01:52: Message edited by: Rossweisse ]

--------------------
I'm not dead yet.

Posts: 15117 | From: Valhalla | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081

 - Posted      Profile for Eutychus   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
hosting/

Ross, accusations of trolling, especially immediately in the wake of a hostly warning, have no place in Purgatory: desist.

If anyone has any more to add to this thread, please make sure it's addressing the issue and not attacking the person as per Commandment 3.

/hosting

--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy

Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools