This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Perhaps. To my way of thinking, he recognizes that all he'll know is bounded by what he can know. — tim wood

Right. And this is one way to read that the real is rational and the rational real. What isn't intelligible to us (isn't mediated by human concept and feeling) might as well not be at all. It exists only as a negation (which is to say perhaps as mere confusion.)

Therefore, whatever God he has, is his own. That makes him God. Makes each his or her own God. Most of us divinities understand that our imperfect Godhood is just a short distance of approaching, and the goal unattainable, except in terms of the approaching - us modest gods, anyway. — tim wood

I agree, but I would emphasize how radically social we are. So for me it's more like: whatever Gods we have, are our own. To be alone with a new god is to be a madman or a prophet.

I also agree with your sense of being only on the way (still becoming and not being God.) The modern project of building a just and rational world looks like a modification of Hegel and Feuerbach to me. The very idea of 'moral progress' understands community as an evolving organism on the way to an even better community (or perhaps decaying, if one is conservative.) To establish right and wrong with human reason is implicitly godlike, as we acknowledge no bondage to anything extra-human. 'Reason' in all of its ambiguity is the Holy Ghost, and since it's open to criticism by its very nature, it's unstable. Is 'it' leading us somewhere good? I see a clashing plurality of humanisms.

And if we ever get there, which I think intrinsically impossible, if humanity ever gets there, then they will be God. — tim wood

I think it's impossible too. And images of the end of history seem to leave us without any grand mission. For Kojeve (an ironic and playful philosopher) we'd just become animals again, no longer driven to fight and work. Orgy porgy.

That leaves sci-fi questions such as, is humanity the best vehicle for getting to God? — tim wood

That is a fun question. Our experience of reason allows us to see 'ourselves' in those octopus creatures in Arrival. We're not strictly identified with anything but our language and our human feelings. IMO, those are limits on conceptions of the divine. 'It' has to think and feel like we do --or be a mere explanatory device if we're talking about a philosopher's god.

Beliefs as beliefs, not at all. Beliefs as knowledge, that's a problem. — tim wood

Both are problematic.

Beliefs merely conceal ignorance? No. Beliefs can be the road to knowledge of things that cannot otherwise be known. — tim wood

I suppose a more fitting term in such a case would be hypothesis or supposition and to the degree one is aware of their own ignorance one isn't concealing it, but fair enough.

And this is one way to read that the real is rational and the rational real — jellyfish

Oh hi hoo.

It is confusing.... — Valentinus

I think it's confusing because Tim is arguing with himself.

I can’t say I understand what exactly you’re are saying or what exactly you’re asking. You’ve had replies though ... are they hitting close to the mark purposefully or by accident? If the later rephrasing your post may help.

GL

To state what is said earlier better:

People are prone to failure. Time has a huge impact on how many mistakes a person mistakes. It appears you agreed with this. The christian and the non christian will do wrong to some measure in accordance with how long they are on this earth.

I am keenly interested in the psychological register, both in the ways it fits in with some philosophical points of view while being rejected altogether by others. I am not sure how to see your point of view against that backdrop.

Whether one takes any model as a rule or not, the need to understand how persons develop is an old thing and not just the darling of a certain time.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

ok. This is the typical tactic on this site used by just about everybody including myself. Playing dumb.

If a person converted to the correct religion, and then only had 10 days to live, i would argue you would be quite impressed with that religion's particular set of beliefs. Thus you would be impressed with religion or a set of beliefs.
— christian2017
I suppose when you wrote these two sentences, you had something in mind that made sense, which sense you thought you were expressing. Unfortunately that sense didn't make it to your text. I have no idea what you mean or what your point is, here. Try again?

The longer people live the more likely they will make minor mistakes and major mistakes. Some people are called d-bags when they make minor mistakes. Some people see minor mistakes as major mistakes.

Is that more clear?

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

I disagree.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

i disagreed with the original way you stated it. I think some people don't know how to define ethical behavior.