It might help to define your terms. What is it exactly that you're asking?

It might help to define your terms. What is it exactly that you're asking? — S

@Banno what do you think?

"I want everyone to believe in god, so . . . it's anything at all that you can say about the world."

Talk about a gross overgeneralization! Or not...

Humor--How does it work?

Banno, what do you think? — Wallows

Well, there is some ambiguity here to deal with about subjecthood, but, on second thought, it seems logic alone is sufficent to answer the question:

If only a person can have subjecthood, and God is not a person, then the answer is no. And if God is everything that can (truly) be said of the world, but it can't (truly) be said of the world that it possesses subjecthood, as seems to be the case, then the answer is also no. And if you meant anything at all that can be said of the world, then that leads to contradiction, so the answer would be no in this case as well.

So, if I'm interpreting you correctly, and my reasoning is sound, then the answer is no.

Nice analysis. Yet, most religions, perhaps excluding Judaism, talk about God as a person or as if "It" was a subject residing in the world instead of treating "It" as everything that is the case. Why is that?

Nice analysis. Yet, most religions, perhaps excluding Judaism, talk about God as a person or as if "It" was a subject residing in the world instead of treating "It" as everything that is the case. Why is that? — Wallows

Thanks. It's an irrational emotional attachment. They want something which they can relate to.

It's an irrational emotional attachment. They want something which they can relate to. — S

It's worth remembering that this topic is not about God, but whether a particular word - "subjecthood" - might apply to God. We might as usefully ask whether a dog or a martian is adequately described by "subjecthood".... :chin:

It's worth remembering that this topic is not about God, but whether a particular word - "subjecthood" - might apply to God. We might as usefully ask whether a dog or a martian is adequately described by "subjecthood".... :chin: — Pattern-chaser

You're right, it's not really about God at all, it's about everything that can be said about the world or everything that is the case, and if we can call that "God", then it's virtually anything goes. You might just as well call your toaster "God" if that floats your boat.

Is this just a misconstrued thread where language went on holiday? Maybe God has subjecthood?

A subject can't exist without an object to delineate the two. But, if God is everything, then the issue is inchoate?

You're right, it's not really about God at all, it's about everything that can be said about the world or everything that is the case — S

No. From the OP:

does God posses 'subjecthood'? — Wallows

It's about a word, and whether that word applies to God. So does it? :chin:

No. — Pattern-chaser

Whoosh.

It's about a word, and whether that word applies to God. So does it? :chin: — Pattern-chaser

I've already answered. :brow:

If we assume that God is not a person and is everything that can be said about the world, then does God posses 'subjecthood'? — Wallows

Your assumption sounds an awful lot like Spinoza declining to project our sense of agency upon the element that created it. In Spinoza's case, he was expelled from his congregation for not accepting the "I am that I am" as something that was said by some entity.

Is your question different from that dispute?

Is your question different from that dispute? — Valentinus

I'm not sure. I think that my assertion isn't really that different from claiming that God is not something that can be talked about. "It" (God) has no subject because he transcends the subject-object distinction. Therefore, some form of quietism is apt when wanting to "talk" about God. Of course, there's a paradox here because I am talking about God; but, it can be interpreted as babble, along with what anyone else would want to say something about God.

If we assume that God is not a person and is everything that can be said about the world, then does God posses 'subjecthood'? — Wallows

Yeah, I interpret this as babble. It would be more coherent to ask if God is an object. If God is the world then God is an object.

As I mentioned in the other thread we can dispense with these terms, "subject" and "subjective" and get by just fine. It seems to me that it is the use of those terms that causes the confusion.

we can dispense with these terms, "subject" and "subjective" and get by just fine. It seems to me that it is the use of those terms that cause the confusion. — Harry Hindu

:up:

As I mentioned in the other thread we can dispense with these terms, "subject" and "subjective" and get by just fine. It seems to me that it is the use of those terms that causes the confusion. — Harry Hindu

I think it's a handy term for referring to mind-dependent or mind-oriented rather than mind-independent or extramental etc.

Any question of the general form "What is God?" is just gateway to rabbit world through countless rabbit holes. One escapes by asking instead "What does it mean to have/believe in a God?

I think it's a handy term for referring to mind-dependent or mind-oriented rather than mind-independent or extramental etc. — Terrapin Station

If your saying that subjectivity is a feature of minds, then how is that any different than talking about the features of some other process or thing in reality? Everything has distinctive features that make them different from other things. Subjectivity would be no more special than some other feature of reality, and would be a subset of reality (the objective).

As I interpret it 'subjecthood' implicates the attributes of awareness, knowledge, intelligence, intention, purposeful motivation, concern and action, and self-reflective awareness, knowledge, intelligence, intention, purposeful motivation, concern and action.

Do these sound like attributes which are normally predicated of God?

If your saying that subjectivity is a feature of minds, then how is that any different than talking about the features of some other process or thing in reality? Everything has distinctive features that make them different from other things. Subjectivity would be no more special than some other feature of reality, and would be a subset of reality (the objective). — Harry Hindu

I use the terms "subjective" and "objective" to refer to whether something is a mental phenomenon or not. Is that understandable?

Do these sound like attributes which are normally predicated of God? — Janus

Yes, they do sound like attributes we ascribe to God.

Right, so you're saying that mental phenomena are special where they deserve a special term while all other phenomena fall into the other category. What I've been saying is that there is nothing special about mental phenomenon that would require me to use a special term for it.

hmmm, maybe I do belong here.

I wouldn't say "special" necessarily, but there's a need sometimes to refer to a distinction between "mind-dependent" or "mind-oriented" rather than "mind-independent" or "extramental" etc, and those terms, especially "mind-independent" and the like, can read pretty cumbersomely if you have to write them a lot..

It would be similar to if we often had occasion to refer to whether something is loudspeaker-dependent versus loudspeaker-independent. Less cumbersome words would be handy in that case. Who wants to keep writing or reading "loudspeaker-independent"?

Right, so just use "mental" to refer to mental phenomena and "loudspeaker" to refer to loudspeaker phenomena, "stellar" to refer to stellar phenomena, etc. Using a term to distinguish between one phenomena and all others implies that there is something special about that particular phenomena when all phenomena are different, or distinguishable, in some way.

Perhaps I should mention that in the Judeo-Christian traditions God most often has qualities of subjecthood. I don't know many religions that ascribe meaning onto God without giving him or her or it some qualitative manner...

When I think about god I think about how 0 represents infinity and so does 8. Two iterations of the exact same
Thing. It’s coincidental as well that the Roman Catholic religion claims that the world was made in seven days. and that there happens to be 7 numbers between 0 and 8. I guess if there was a true god he/she/they/it would encompass all the numbers 0 to 8. This leads me to the question was god asleep and having nightmares when the snake snuck into the garden of Eden to tempt eve. Or was this whole good versus evil thing meant to get the wheel turning and force is to overcome our limits and evolve?