but there was a paradox with the 'Eternal' being timeless and and 'God' seeming to do things in time, this perhaps making for some bad weather in the thread when it became known. — PoeticUniverse

As this is almost a direct argument, I would take issue with your use of "eternal", "timeless", "god" and "do things", but as I am probably missing some metaphor, I will leave it alone.

There Zhou relaxes, up against a tree,
Savoring the feeling of the poetry,
Where all the flowers used in Shakespeare’s plays
Grow together in a living bouquet. — PoeticUniverse

I don't dislike things that I have NOT been exposed to (damn, is that a triple negative? oh well, it says what I mean). So are you suggesting if I try shakespeare, dickinson, byron, keating, etc, for a 2nd (or 20th) time, I will change my mind? I am not sure that vague, fictional metaphors will convince me of poetry's value...even if they seem clever and well put-together :smile:

As they say in math, shut up and show your work. No work, no play. — StreetlightX

Cool. I only took a couple of philosophy courses in college, and they did not get into showing your work. Can you give me a quick example from this thread where you have "shown your work" so I know how to do so effectively?

If a relatively benign phrase like that seems like too much to you, you shouldn't be studying philosophy. That something is 'in the air' is, if anything, a pretty colloquial expression. — StreetlightX

Too much for me? Who said that? Wasn't it fairly obvious that I understood it? Maybe not? It is just garbage writing. What percent of the English speaking world do you think would EXACTLY understand that sentence? If you say more than 10% I think you need to talk to some people that are not college professors. Was that one of those sentences you mentioned where it is important to make the reader think?

That something is 'in the air' is, if anything, a pretty colloquial expression. — StreetlightX

Sure but it is used very causally as it doesn't say much (which is exactly how the author uses it). Adding the word manifestly is just going to ensure that some percent of your readers aren't EXACTLY following. Similarly, if I ask "do you have a preference for X?" I could ask the exact same question but be sure I have alienated some readers by asking "do you have a discriminating preference for X"?

you shouldn't be studying philosophy. — StreetlightX

So what is the prerequisite? Who should be studying philosophy? Since disliking unclear communication is a dis-qualifier, is there a test I can take so that I know when I am ready to start studying philosophy?

I had to first look up the Zhou Botong character on Wiki so that the poem would make a little bit of sense. — PoeticUniverse

Nice. I thought you lucked into all that martial stuff.

Oh, and I thought it made perfect sense. It is just that figurative language and the grammar of poetry cause me to take longer to understand. I thought it was brilliant (well, clever for poetry anyway, haha) by the time I figured it out

Well upon re-reading, I don't think my questions are that helpful either. My bad. I will sort of re-phrase at the end of this post.

Firstly I don't think "pedantic" is an appropriate judgement in the context of what we are discussing here. — Janus

If it is not pedantic, then the speaker has made overly complicated language their normal form of communication (you are right without 'knowing' the author did it with the intention of sounding smart, I can't say for sure it is pedantic - but it is still problematic).

Secondly I think it just means that the subject has obviously been much discussed of late ("of late" or "in the air" meaning at the time of writing of course) and so is of present philosophical significance. — Janus

Exactly. So it said, "here is a current subject of interest"...Well, I sure hope so! Why else are you writing this whole essay about it?

Oh and just in case it helps, I DO believe in prerequisites. I DO believe some subjects are so complicated that an uninitiated needs to go do some studying before participating.

However, MOST of the time:

Doesn't the speaker have some responsibility in being understood? When communicating with other humans that don't have master's or doctorate degrees, are phrases like "the subject is manifestly in the air" effective communication?

Where do you get the idea that I am worried about "salvation" or "enlightenment"? — Artemis

Just a hunch. You seemed to be talking about immorality as something we can eliminate vs a subjective opinion. Being perfectly moral sounds like enlightenment or salvation ideas to me. It seems nonsensical from a non-mystical viewpoint...similar to recent threads where people are trying to eliminate belief.

I would argue that intellectual enlightenment is the path to vegetarianism — Artemis

Wait, if 'enlightenment' is a real thing there could be no more 'end goal' right? So it would not be a path to something else. Am I thinking too buddhist? Is there another concept of personal enlightenment I should be looking into?

If you really are a consequentialist and only care about the suffering of animals, — Artemis

That is why I said "MORE of a consequentialist" not 100% consequentialist.

Again, nobody here said someone was an awful person for eating meat. — Artemis

TheMadFool was calling himself an awful person for eating meat...can you stop projecting my projections :razz:

You have to draw the line somewhere, no matter how black and white you think that is, because otherwise you're on route to justifying the Holocaust and slavery. — Artemis

Huh? Black and white? My argument? It is arguing that it is all grey areas more than anything. You are the one trying to "draw lines". Please highlight any argument I ever present that you view as justification for the holocaust and slavery. Am I wrong to assume it is obvious that meat eating is not as bad as slavery or the holocaust?

which is that a meaningful distinction between theism and atheism must be maintained if we're to talk any sense. I believe in what is. That doesn't mean that I believe in God. That doesn't make me a theist. — S

If it's not a sensible consensus, then it's not worth it. If the rest of you all agreed that God is a state of mind, then good for you, but that's still a terrible description. — S

I hear all that. But I am not convinced that most people in this thread are even understanding what we are getting at...I certainly am not understanding what they are getting at?

Zhou BoTong, trapped in a cave by a poem,
As by the writing on the wall stranded,
Was martially both right and left handed;
Such he slashed rhythms and rhymes from the stone. — PoeticUniverse

Hahaha. Nicely done again.

Imagine my dismay
Having smashed the rhymes
And entered the light of day
Just to spend my time
Listening to people rhyme away

I would definitely score high marks in 4th grade poetry :grin:

You don't have to answer, but do you get paid for some form of writing? From my amateur, poetry-hating perspective, you really do seem pretty clever in your writing.

I am also realizing that I don't mind poetry if the purpose is just to have a laugh (and I obviously enjoy some music). But, when someone is trying to make a serious point, I wish they would just make it (even your simple poem above took me two or three reads before I really understood all 4 lines).

If one immoral act justifies others, where and how do you draw the line? — Artemis

We are humans...we are ALL consistently committing immoral acts FROM SOME VIEWPOINT. Even my own personal morality is impossible to live up to. If morality is how we ought to behave then EVERY time I get upset, or am rude to another human, or squash an ant, I have behaved immorally. I do recognize these actions as needing improvement, but I don't consider myself an awful person despite acting 'immorally'. And what line? That seems too black and white for me.

It seems yourself and @TheMadFool view morality far more personally than I do. I also seem to be more of a consequentialist. If I am concerned about the morality of meat-eating, it is because I am concerned about the suffering of millions of animals. I am not concerned about my personal 'salvation' or 'enlightenment'. If I NEVER eat meat from now until my death, but the status quo of meat eating continues...then my choice to NOT eat meat was NEITHER good or bad as it accomplished nothing. It did not alleviate suffering. In that case it was only 'moral' in relations to my feelings of personal enlightenment.

I just want to ask you something if you don't mind?

Are you vegetarian or non-vegetarian?

In either case do you have any reasons apart from meat being tasty? — TheMadFool

Still a meat eater. ALL of my favorite foods/meals include meat. So mostly just wallowing in my hypocrisy similar to you. But for some reason I don't feel the need to beat myself up over it...? But when I truly think about it, I don't have much of a defense. My main defense other than tasty probably amounts to "well it's not that bad, right?" Also, FOR ME (I get this won't be enough for many), if the animals lives are pleasant right up to the point of death (I think Temple Grandin was mentioned at the beginning of the thread), and the death is painless (and not seeing it coming would be an added bonus), then I don't see a moral harm as I would volunteer for that situation.

I like the taste of meat but I begin to imagine myself having my throat slit and then chopped up into little pieces that end up in a restaurant, then cooked and served to people who're joking and laughing as they eat my flesh and, lastly the utter humiliation of having to come out of somebody's ass as mush. — TheMadFool

I agree with the throat slit part, I would dislike the 48 seconds of bleeding out. But the rest I am fine with. If y'all want to chew on my fat once I am dead, enjoy. Ideally, I would be eaten by a lion or a killer whale or something cool, but eaten by people sounds better than eaten by worms and fungus.

It's not just the fact that animals are killed. The utter absence of compassion of any kind. — TheMadFool

This is true, but at least I am not way more compassionate with people. If someone wants to pay for me to live for the next 30 years, I will let them eat the 68 year old me (obviously if I am just trapped on a farm for 30 years in awful conditions, I change my mind).

I'm still non-veg which makes me worse than those I'm bitching about because at least I know and most non-vegetarians are totally unaware of what they're doing. When you wear a ring for long enough you don't feel it anymore. — TheMadFool

I think you are being hard on yourself. Don't we all know that plastic water bottles are terrible? But they are just so convenient :grimace: I think our aversion to inconvenience is surprisingly powerful. I guess that doesn't make it right.

Non-vegetarianism is immoral. Stop eating meat. Please. — TheMadFool

Have you read Bitter Crank's posts from 3 years ago (in this thread)? He makes some good points about heavily reducing our meat eating while ACTUALLY WORKING to ensure the living conditions are adequate. I get more upset with myself for not inspecting the living conditions of the food I eat, MORE than I worry about eating meat. But I can't disagree with the sentiment too much.

Yes, I would defend the position that eating meat is immoral. — Artemis

I don't think you are going to get strong opposition to this position, and I don't think there will ever be a solid argument for eating meat the way we do in modern society. I would just say, we all have levels of immoral...is it immoral like disrespecting your parents or immoral like genocide?

I currently view my over-use of plastics as a more significant moral harm than my meat eating...but I can admit that both are flaws I should work on (but I just don't, I have tried to analyze myself, is it a type of cognitive dissonance? it feels like my brain understands the problem but my emotions are still undecided - I think I have some sort of hang-up - if the rest of the world is not making sacrifices, why should I? I guess with that attitude we will all go down together :grimace:).

Happy to see that you're not from the dark side. — PoeticUniverse

I find your lack of faith disturbing. You don't know the power of the Dark Side. :smile:

@Sunnyside Poeticuniverse is certainly talented...unfortunately I just have a general aversion to poetry. But even I can admit that he adds something to the forum...hopefully people like you can enjoy it.

1.) law can have no exception whatsoever, otherwise it be merely a rule;
1A.) every human is endowed with a will, therefore every human is a moral agent;

2.) if procreation were deemed an immoral act, the imperative corresponding to it for any moral agent must be as if it were in accordance with a universal law for all moral agents;
3.) the universal law must be that no moral agent shall make the immoral procreatic act;
4.) that no moral agent, re: no human, shall make the procreatic act leads necessarily to the extinction of the human species;
5.) it is contradictory that the extinction of the human species shall follow from a universal law;
6.) it cannot be in accordance with a contradiction that cessation of the act of procreation be a moral imperative;
7.) the procreatic act, in and of itself, cannot be deemed immoral. — Mww

Sorry for labeling you a vague communicator in that other thread. You can be (can't we all), but this is just one of many examples where you are clear and direct. I also happen to like this argument, but mostly, I am just apologizing, as I don't think calling out yourself and poeticuniverse helped my argument much.

I'm sure I owe @PoeticUniverse an apology too, but he just uses so much poetry...so I don't want to :grin:

There is a space, a necessary one, for things to be hard-going. Not everything should be made easy, as though a matter of principle. — StreetlightX

Entirely agreed. I do believe in prerequisites :smile:

If a person tries to learn calculus before addition and subtraction, they are going to have a lot of problems.

And there is that whole zone-of-proximal-development thing which says if stuff is TOO HARD or TOO EASY students will not learn to their potential.

I thought that complicated language is not the issue, but the usage of esoteric words. — god must be atheist

Fair enough, I was just trying to use 'complicated language' to summarize all of the different language issues that have popped up in this thread.

but the only exception I can find is legal documents. — god must be atheist

makes sense, since they do NEED to be understood by everyone.

Absolutely not. If you have a paper trying to solve, say, the Riemann hypothesis, the goal of that paper is to solve the Riemann hypothesis, — StreetlightX

Agreed. I would not expect to understand that paper...but seriously, what realm do you exist in where that is part of 'most' communications?

So just so you get why I am arguing, I taught Martial Arts for 10 years. Since then I have taught middle school through high school, mostly history, but some math, and too much English as well. I want EVERY student to be able to understand. And fortunately, there is almost nothing taught at the high school level, that can't be explained fairly simply...most humans' academic level is WELL BELOW the knowledge learned in high school (they may know a lot about their job, but would struggle to compete with 6th graders at math and history).

When I taught martial arts, I COULD have used all sorts of technical jargon, but there is this concept called code-switching which most people can do pretty easily. I used technical terms with people that get it, and common language with those who don't.

Now I get you work at a college, where everyone is brilliant. But outside the ivory tower (hehe, I've never sounded so Republican before), there are very few subjects that can not be easily, simply, and clearly explained.

Hardly. Presumed knowledge, unarticulated concepts, allusive references, condensed presentation of reasoning and so on do far more to make a work hard to read than any 'big vocabulary'. — StreetlightX

Most of the threads on THIS website, a philosophy forum, do not require understanding of any of the difficulties you have mentioned above. A philosophy forum would be more likely to discuss issues that could be difficult, and yet most threads do not REQUIRE knowledge of technical jargon or references to a specific philosopher, to be understood.

I am NOT saying that the more technical threads are all pedantic. Those are the passages you refer to when saying I (we) need to get educated or butt out - and I AGREE.

But most communication, most of the time, should be communicated with the goal of being understood by as many as possible. Why not?

is that this thread is complete total ignorant bullshit. — god must be atheist

haha, I feel like almost everyone is discussing a slightly different version of the same topic. If we each are visualizing a different scenario where complicated language is used, how can we agree on the usage?

What do you make of it? Is it meaningless to you? If so, do you think you would not be able understand it if you were familiar with the central ideas of the philosophers Heidegger and Hegel he refers to? If you do understand it, do you think what it is saying could have somehow been expressed in simpler, more "literal" language, and if so, without any loss of quality? — Janus

I asked several direct questions that I think would have shed more light on the situation, but fine, let's try it this way:

The subject dealt with here is manifestly in the air. — Janus

pure pedantic garbage...right? It says NOTHING, right? I understand all of the words...but maybe their sum is greater than the parts? You have also pulled a random passage out of context, which may be why I am not picking up the full meaning.

The signs may be noted: — Janus

I am not sure I even know what exactly they are saying here ("for example"? or "we know this is true because"? or "there are signs that we can record"? - the last one seems most direct, but as this passage is out of context, I can't say for sure (and if the last one right, why is it being said at all?). Seems a poor use of language.

Heidegger's more and more pronounced orientation towards a philosophy of ontological Difference; — Janus

Here you are right, I don't know Heidegger. I like to think ideas existed before people became famous for them, but I can understand there are SOME TIMES (not a lot) where saying a name can act as a useful summary.

the structuralist project, — Janus

yes. I would have to know what the structuralist project is

based upon a distribution of differential characters within a space of coexistence; — Janus

while not terrible, this is verging on pedantic. This could be written in a way that is clear to more people without much effort.

As I am not very interested in the content of the passage, and I think I have gone through enough to prove both of our points (and I don't want to torture you as I go through every line), I will stop there.

What do you make of it? — Janus

Not written for me. I would lose interest after the hearing that "the subject is manifestly in the air".

Is it meaningless to you? — Janus

Not meaningless, but you are right to assume there are allusions/references that I do not understand (and those allusions/references are the major ideas being referred to).

If so, do you think you would not be able understand it if you were familiar with the central ideas of the philosophers Heidegger and Hegel he refers to? I — Janus

It would clarify the few sentences that require background knowledge. And obviously, the WHOLE passage requires context (much of which is the philosophy of Heideger and Hegel...but not all). And the random capitalizations (sometimes Difference, sometimes difference) suggest a writer who just IS NOT considering the reader at all.

There is NOTHING I understand that I would explain so unclearly...but yes I am a moron, so oh well.

Good. Neither do I, which I why I didn't speak of vocabulary, let alone even use the word. — StreetlightX

Huh? I thought the thread was 'obfuscatory discourse'? Isn't vocabulary the biggest obfuscatator?

Anyway, it just strikes me that alot of the the circle-jerk of mutual-agreement going on in this thread is a apology for condescension. — StreetlightX

I thought you were referring to the people here that are agreeing that pedantic language use can be a problem?

It reeks of a lack of respect for the intelligence of the other, or else just intelligence in general. — StreetlightX

Since I am obviously wrong, what is the "it" you are referring to here?

Not even children ought to be spoken to like children, who generally deserve much better than we give them. — StreetlightX

When you say "spoken to like children"...you are NOT talking about vocabulary? What, is my grammar going to be too complex for them? Surely it is the VOCABULARY that they would have trouble understanding, so that would be the part is 'dumbed down'...what am I missing here?

It was fast, for there are sites on the internet for making anagrams. — PoeticUniverse

Well, I am still impressed. You still had to make up all that BS for the anagrams to make your point..

The OP's linked essay has a very nice point about how, when writing about tough topics, one ought to be 'dual-lingual': able to flit easily between specialist and lay writing. This I quite like. — StreetlightX

Sounds like you acknowledge there are times when pedantic language is a problem? Why bother with the lay writing?

It reeks of a lack of respect for the intelligence of the other, or else just intelligence in general. — StreetlightX

Huh? I don't measure intelligence based on vocabulary (at most, vocabulary shows an education level). Using common language is showing that I DO respect their intelligence, even if they don't know fancy words (I still want their opinion on the subject). When I am asked to explain a word, I don't lose respect for the questioner, I analyze what I said to see how I could communicate better next time.

Hidden in the word ‘Evolution’ which as an anagram…
is the meaning
Outlive On
which means literally metaphorically to outlive the others,
in order to survive and live on, and
Vile No Out
Vile On Out
which symbolically means that we can go either way, vile or not, and
Live On Out
which the wise old ancients took to mean to live well and look alive, and
Evil No Out
Evil On Out
which the symbolic Bible reveals to have a mixture of good and ‘bad’ is best, and
Novel I Out
which is the story of evolution read to us by the fossils, and
Ovule In To
Love In Out
which means for man and woman to know each other
in the Biblical way to procreate and recreate, and, finally
Love I Unto
which proves beyond all doubt that
evolution = love. — PoeticUniverse

Nicely done :smile:

Did you come up with that on the spot, or have you used it before? How long did it take to originate? It would have taken me hours, but I get the sense you can just spit that out off the top of your head?

The use of "Obfuscatory" was probably intentional, a kind of joke on the OP. — PoeticUniverse

Agreed, I think that is what @StreetlightX was pointing out anyway. And you are probably right that @rlclauer was well aware of what he was doing there.

especially pointing out the exquisite use of "particulate matter"—which turned out to be 'sand'. — PoeticUniverse

Yes. This could be a dictionary example of pedantic. There may be times and places where jargon or complicated vocabulary are necessary (or at least helpful in some way), but this is an example where all the use of 'particulate matter' accomplished was to reduce the number of people that understood the message being delivered.

I think there's a new support group for sophisicate babblers, called 'On and on, anon.'. — PoeticUniverse

I often tell students the best reason for a big vocabulary is comedy :smile:

Yes, as not a smart evolved alien but as Fundamental and First, intact and complete, with no beginning and no end, as eternal, since something exists, obviously, and that Existence has no alternative that can be. Even if we were only philosophically discussing what 'IS', not 'God', those attributes would still apply, and so it's a good starting point. It's like Parmenides’ unity in multiplicity idea sort of. — PoeticUniverse

Logically...isn't there no more reason for an eternal god as there is for one that just popped into being? If this paragraph was supposed to provide that logic, I am not seeing it. Seems more like fancy restatements of your position?

How do we know that all that 'is' is eternal?

Hypothetically, IF (big if, I get) the big bang was the start of the universe then your argument would be that the permanent nothingness that existed before that was 'god'? And because by your definition 'god' is 'all that is' then after the big bang, all of that is still 'god'? Couldn't the lower case 'existence' capture everything you are saying in simple everyday language?

I wasn't arguing, at least in this thread or yet rather :) — schopenhauer1

Haha, well once I am in the picture, it is only a matter of time.

Well, I should say a "stand in", a synonym maybe for "what is the case". As for being not real, it depends on how we want to limit the concept. For example, Plato had a concept of "The Good" but Zeus, Hera, Apollo, Dionysus, Pan, and all the other Greek deities and demigods were floating around too. Plato's The Good seems more like a metaphysical statement and the Greek deities (pre-Socratic at least) seemed more like traditional gods of some transcendental kind that looks after human affairs and creates the universe and all that. So are we rejecting things like metaphysical statements and keeping deities, or is the field relatively open? — schopenhauer1

Now that I am starting to understand you (I think?), I think I am on board. You are getting into all of the concepts or ideas that god or gods have ever represented and including them in a potential description of god...right?

Oh prophetic visions, some divine communion sensation, otherworldly beings, otherwordly trances, otherwordly visions, revelations, feelings of oneness, out-of-body experiences, things like that. — schopenhauer1

oh. Duh. I was thinking of how to describe god in a mystical way, vs "learning" about it using mystical methods.

Right, theists generally believe there to be an aspect of a transcendent being usually to be considered "God". But if we are in the realm of something like Plato's The Good, or Spinoza's God, Schopenhauer's Will, Whitehead's process theology, and other metaphysical foundational ideas, then the field is opened up to more than just "some transcendent being that creates and cares what humans do". — schopenhauer1

I think this sounds rather interesting and I have never considered looking at 'god' from this perspective. But rather than referring to it/them as god, couldn't we just say "metaphysical foundational ideas" and our communication would be more clear?

I like it, but I really don't see any theists (or even many agnostics) agreeing to this description of god?

As to the OP, I think language can be arcane, and there may be poetic value in that, if it makes you think, put effort into interpreting what is written, and think differently. Some complex allusive ideas cannot be translated into simple "literal" language without any loss of conceptual richness. Of course if you have no taste for poetry then you won't like a lot of "continental" philosophy. I like to say that in philosophy there are two main traditions: there is the Anal Tradition and the Incontinent Tradition; the retentive and the expressive. — Janus

As I almost always agree with, or learn from, your posts, let me disagree and see if I can learn something.

Does the speaker have any responsibility in being understood?

What you have wrote seems to imply we all have communication preferences (undoubtedly true), so misunderstanding will occur? (correct my misunderstanding where needed)

MOST, certainly not all, but most people who can use pedantic language are smart enough to be aware of it. Therefor, they should be smart enough to NOT use it if they are hoping to communicate with a large swathe of humanity.

Now I can admit there are some very bright people that may primarily operate using vague figurative language...and some of these people may do it so regularly that it is just who they are, and they can't even realize they are doing it (@Mww and @PoeticUniverse come to mind). I don't find these people pedantic, but I do find that I have to read much of what they write multiple times before it makes sense.

Some complex allusive ideas cannot be translated into simple "literal" language without any loss of conceptual richness. — Janus

I am sure I am being stupid, but can you give me a non-art example of this? Or do you mean stuff like the word "red" cannot capture everything we experience when we see "red"...ugh, I hope it is not that as that example NEVER causes confusion in a conversation. I have never had someone question what I meant when I said "red".

There is a link to a pdf by Graff, which is a paper he wrote about the fact that academia has an unjustified culture of obtuse and obfuscatory communication styles. This is not just limited to overly-jargonized communication to other specialists in a narrow field, but also to general academic discourse and literature, which is written in esoteric manners, which are often inaccessible to general audiences.

The general thrust of the paper is that this is an unnecessary addition to the academic process. — rlclauer

Yup. Unquestionably a problem.

My personal take on this situation, is that even in philosophical conversations, the likes of which occur in this forum, can become overly pedantic and obtuse — rlclauer

It is a bit of a problem here, but I find it far worse in the average document published by a college professor. Around here, when I can't understand people, I generally blame my inadequate knowledge of the subject being discussed. I only call people out for being pedantic if it is a subject I am very confident in.

Have you ever read anything by an English professor? Literary criticisms are the most pedantic documents I have ever read...it also seems intentional. I wouldn't mind except high school english teachers assign these pieces of garbage to their students (with the expressed intent of clarifying their understanding of whatever book they are reading).

While I am in general agreement, one's level of education must be taken into consideration. What may seem to be clearly stated to someone with the requisite knowledge of the subject matter may sound like nonsense to someone who is not familiar with the terminology and issues. If one wishes to discuss the work of philosophers then one needs to move beyond the level of ordinary discourse, which does not adequately address such matters. — Fooloso4

Does it seem strange that I can 100% agree with this, and 100% agree with the OP? I don't think anything was specifically said that would discount what you wrote here.

Titles thread: "Obfuscatory Discourse". — StreetlightX

hehe, what, does that seem a pedantic title to you?

I think a place to start is can we say that God can be a metaphor for "what is" (aka metaphysics)? — schopenhauer1

First, I am interested in all this, but I want to get right to the point. Feel free to call me stupid, but please don't get offended and stop arguing (same goes for @PoeticUniverse, @Pattern-chaser, @uncanni and everyone else).

Ok, but if 'god' is a metaphor then it doesn't actually impact our reality (at least not any more than any other fictional being that one might believe is real), right?

Does God have to have a telos (a universal end or goal)? — schopenhauer1

Not a requirement for me.

Does God have to involve some sort of mystical understanding? — schopenhauer1

Not sure. Can you give me an example of mystical understanding? I am probably making it far more complicated than it needs to be

If God is simply a metaphor for "what is", then I think that is a starting place. From here we can perhaps examine things like point of view. What is the world without the point of view of a self? In other words, what is the view from anywhere, everywhere, and nowhere? So far we can only imagine views from a subjective self, but not anywhere, everywhere, and nowhere. — schopenhauer1

Correct me where I am wrong...doesn't this line of thought start with admitting there is no god? If it is JUST a metaphor for 'what is' then it is ONLY a metaphor....? I am fine with this, but I doubt many of the theists will be?

Perhaps belief just spreads too far to accommodate in one description? :chin: — Pattern-chaser

As that is CLEARLY the thrust of your argument, the OP seems a bit disingenuous?

The whole thing just seems designed to make fun of atheists who are interested in the concept of god. How dare they. You certainly got me :smile:

One needs to establish a sound ground first, such as the necessity of eternal existence, and build on it from there, which informed us that there can be no information coming into what had no beginning and was never made. — PoeticUniverse

Please be patient with me. I struggle to understand you. I will try to restate in words I understand...

So you are saying one necessary description of 'god' is that it must be eternal? And "complete' throughout all of eternity?

On a side note, apparently, I am a VERY literal thinker. I have largely hated poetry my whole life. That doesn't mean that others don't appreciate it, so I tend to just avoid getting in discussions with you, as I have been amazed at how well you live up to your screen name. Whether written in stanzas or not, all of your writing seems rather poetic to me.

I don't seek consensus--especially not about God. I explain my terms as best I can and will be glad to expand and clarify. — uncanni

Hmmm, based on the thread title, I thought "consensus" was the whole point of this thread. After Pattern-chaser's responses, I had to re-read and I am now aware I read the whole thing wrong (not sure why he went with that title), but anyway...

If we are not seeking consensus (some sort of shared understanding), why would I be interested in the explanation? I really don't mean that dismissively or rhetorically. I am sure you are a wonderful person, but I am not here to get to know people. If I am not trying to get you know you, and we are not seeking a shared understanding...what other reason would there be for an explanation?

To some peoples it is as you have variously described and to others "god" is a quite small bit player. The elements Zhoubotong lists only refer to a subset of candidates for "God" even with a capital G. — Fine Doubter

Nope. Just attempting to separate 'god' from everything else THAT WE ALREADY HAVE A NAME FOR.

Otherwise, you get any powerful or knowledgeable entity counting as 'gods'. Once they count, why wouldn't, say, a pharaoh, or Stalin, or 'the internet' count? This has been addressed in nearly EVERY sci-fi show/movie. If everyone wants to be vague and metaphorical in their descriptions, fine...but it seems cowardly.

For me, the omni- stuff is unhelpful. — Pattern-chaser

Haha, oops, I missed the UN part of unhelpful. Dang, and that is just about the ONLY part I can understand. Everything else seems to be people's feeling of what they think their god is - not an attempted objective description, for example:

God is the 'shepherd' of life in the universe; we (all living things) are in Her care. — Pattern-chaser

St. Anselm gets there "fustest with the mostest," with his "that than which nothing greater can be conceived." — tim wood

Its existence is necessity — PoeticUniverse

Rejection of God = human violence/sadism. Absence of God = complete self-engrossment, psychopathic narcissism. Instant gratification at any cost. Because the strongest and most aggressive can. — uncanni

God is all-powerful, timeless, limitless and not bound by space, which explains how He can be everywhere at the same time. — jorgealarcon

(I think I can wrap my puny human brain around "all powerful", but "timeless" and "limitless" are only saying what god is not, what does "timeless" mean as a trait for a being?)

I don't see how ideas like those listed above can possibly lead to any type of consensus. This thread is so far free of each side trying to convince the other they are right (hooray!), so maybe we can make a little progress toward a common understanding of the word 'god'? I think we would have to tend toward objectivity (probably impossible, but if we are not at least trying, well...), and S has had some worthwhile thoughts:

It'll have to be acceptable to atheists, too, in a sense. If it's too vague, as the above is, then how can I even make sense of my atheism in relation to your theism? It must be clear enough, so that we know what we're talking about. — S

Vague, unconventional, subjective, arbitrary, renders theism indistinguishable from atheism. — S

That being said, it is amorphous enough a concept that it will just transmute from person to person, sufficiently obscuring any attempt for people to arrive at some consensus on what it means. — rlclauer

This is certainly true, but the word "god" must imply something that words like "nature", "universe", "everything", etc do not capture. If we are TRYING to be objective, "All knowing" and "All powerful" (with both power and knowledge being unconstrained by the laws of physics) seem to be the minimum requirements...right? Otherwise why call it "god" when we could just call it "nature" or "Steve the alien" or "Hal9000"?

Do please elaborate. — Shamshir

I think the "omni-stuff" includes concepts like the "all knowing" (omniscience) and "all-powerful" (omnipotent) I mentioned above....I am realizing that you likely knew this already...maybe you need to elaborate on which parts you want elaborated? Or maybe I should just let @Pattern-chaseranswer before getting all huffy?

And @Pattern-chaser, let me know if us atheist-types are supposed to butt-out of this one...but most theists would never bother THINKING about a description or definition of "god" as the answer has already been spelled out for them...? I guess deist-types and half-buddhists are popping up quite a bit, so more and more people are defining for themselves, the god they believe in.

So according to Cantor a segment has an uncountable infinity of points instead of a countable amount. — Gregory

I don't know Cantor, but isn't this just a matter of abstract reasoning, or not?

In the abstract, of course any segment is infinitely divisible. Why wouldn't it be? Outside the abstract, Poetic Universe's mention of Planck scale basically shows Cantor can not be right in that instance (assuming our understanding of Planck scale is accurate and complete).

Philosophy is hard — Gregory

I hear that. Even my 'abstract' answer above is more of a dodge, if I am understanding what you are trying to get at.

I thought all religions were in the comedy genre. But religions have to have a super being or something to worship, so the gnostic cannot be atheist as you stated before. Or are you confused about it. — Sir2u

Man is god and we are legion. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Somewhat like Buddhism and other religions that put man above god thanks to knowing that all gods are man made. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

I can't see where the confusion came from, haha. Still sounds like a sarcastic atheist to me.

To be honest, I’m not sure how much of what holds us back is due to cognitive capacity and how much is understanding how to access it. As I mentioned before, my two children, raised in the same household, have developed very different cognitive capacity to each other. And yet, the Bible has evidence of five-dimensional awareness from Genesis onwards, so we’ve actually been developing it for thousands of years already. We just suck at it. It’s fear mainly that keeps us from choosing awareness, connection and collaboration at every opportunity... — Possibility

As a history student, I can't help but be reminded of "the secret knowledge of the ancients" and those claims are almost always proved false...unless the "secret knowledge" was how to build a dome or something not so impressive. I get that you are approaching this rather rationally, but all this paragraph says to me is "they used to be able to do it, and we can't". I still don't even know what "it" is.

But I find it interesting the way we look at the laws of physics, as if they are what limit our capacity to achieve. The process of actualising our imagination starts with what is possible, and is then constrained by what potential we see in how we experience and collaborate with the universe that would enable us to achieve it. Only then would it be constrained by the time we have available, and finally by the laws of physics. — Possibility

So I can't fly like superman because I don't believe I can fly like superman? Now that is from the movie Bulletproof Monk (although I would assume it is from some daoist teachings or something).

I am not even sure that is what you are saying, but my other interpretation would be along the lines of "in our imaginations exist unlimited possibilities. We can analyze those possibilities to determine the best course of action. Once a course of action is selected, it is subject to the laws of the universe."
But that doesn't seem to be saying anything much at all?

Or on cognitive capacity: are we talking about something like the movie "Lucy"? You can see why I suck at philosophy with all these pop culture references, haha. In that movie, the girl took a drug that caused her brain to build from using only 10% of capacity to 100%. As she hit different levels, she gained powers. Is that the type of thing you are getting at?

Despite my disbelief (or misunderstanding), if you ever stumble across a process that allows you to reach this higher capacity you refer to, I hope you share with the rest of us (or at least me, haha).

I agree with everything you said, except I do not even think the price mechanism as a means of making distribution more efficient is a strength of capitalism. There are so many distortions in the market, what the price mechanism purports to accomplish is undermined. — rlclauer

Hahaha, fair enough. Have we found a better way of deciding how much 'x' and 'y' we should produce? Pure capitalism is a nonsense fantasy (or a dystopian nightmare), and I certainly think the American model needs some heavy socialization. But I have not found a better distribution analysis than supply and demand. I have questioned this aspect of capitalism for years, as it is the only part I particularly agree with. So if there are any alternatives, please show me the way (even if they are vague or underdeveloped).

It's difficult to believe programmed computers would develop that self-reflexivity. — David Rose

Agreed. But you also just pointed out that most humans can't really do it either.

Maybe the true relevance of this discussion relates not to A.I.-produced texts but to the poststructuralist literary Theorists' argument that all literary texts are purely derived from preceding texts, as all linguistic statements are articulated from the pre-existing language; so literary texts might just as well be generated by computer programmes as by writers. That was part of the ideological anti-humanist stance of the poststructuralists, once fashionable although now sliding into the old-fashioned. — David Rose

An interesting take. Is the stance basically questioning how 'creative' are all the things we refer to as 'creativity'? They have a point.

it lies in this same circularity of defining what constitutes a 'literary' text, and by whom. — David Rose

EVERY art thread includes me making arguments related to this quote (they may be simple and unrefined but I refuse to accept art being defined by an authority beyond the dictionary).

OK, carry on talking among yourselves; the philosophy world seems as cliquey as any other. — David Rose

Actually, less cliquey, but equally selfish :grin:

You will notice that almost every response in the thread (and many other threads) has a blue name included. That means they quoted (or tagged with @ button) the person. That sends the person a reminder that someone commented. Then we go and respond. I do try to read whole threads that I am involved in, but sometimes, you come back 48 hours later and there are 8 pages of responses. So you just hit the ones that were direct responses.

I think if you quote previous speakers you will be SIGNIFICANTLY more likely to get a response. Sorry if it seemed like you were being ignored.