What am I arguing, Hugh? — Bartricks

I don't know, Abortricks, what you've been saying seems incoherent to me. What makes it even worse is that you can't (or won't) answer a simple question that threatens your absurd conclusions.

Well, figure out what I am arguing and then figure out why what you just said made no sense at all.

Well, that's 1 minute (a.k.a. 100 million years) I am not getting back . Thanks. — Bartricks

Any time, Pilgrim!

I've already figured out why you can't answer the question; a fact which renders the discussion moot. You're a serial terminator of your own conceptual pregnancies, Abortrix.

It's called arguing in a vicious circle. Your criticism of me will only work if I am correct. So, well done.

Imagine we're in a duel. You would put your gun behind your own head and attempt to shoot me through it. That's what you'd do. And you'd still miss.

Another second - which could mean a house, or a 45 trillion billion years, or anything at all.

How do we know what anything means? How do we really know anything?

How, Vera? How do we really know anything? That's a good question, isn't it? Although how do I know it is? How do any of us really know anything?

Vera! How do any of us know anything!? How?

Your criticism of me only works if I am correct. — Bartricks

Not at all. You are unjustified and arguably incorrect in assuming that 'day' refers to a time period equivalent to one rotation of our planet or the period between one sunrise and the next. We have far less reason to make such a stupid assumption than we do to think that 'Earth' in the Genesis creation myth refers to our Earth. In fact given that the genesis of our existence, cosmically speaking, has always been something that invites philosophical and religious speculation, we have every reason to think the author of Genesis had precisely our world in mind.

How do we really know anything? — Bartricks

You don't.

But how does anyone know anything?

Vera! How do any of us know anything!? How? — Bartricks

Just for being difficult, I'm not going to tell you.

But how do you know you're not going to tell me? How do I know that you mean by 'me' what I mean by 'me'?

These really are very good points

These really are very good points — Bartricks

Yes.

But how does anyone know anything? — Bartricks

It depends. Some things are known logically; they just seem self-evident, and any attempted questioning of them presupposes them. Other things are known by observation. Encyclopedias are full of "facts" which are conventional formulations of what is taken to be the store of human knowledge.There is obviously a distinction between belief and knowledge, but then on examination there are many things humans count as knowledge which would better be characterized as belief.

:100:

So how do you know that I mean by 'day' what you mean by 'day' or second or year? Pray, do tell

I don't know for sure, but it seems most likely that by 'day' you mean a period between successive midnights (or it could be dawns or noons or any time of day) or in other words 24 hours.

Jolly good. Now apply that to the bible. And then acknowledge that your case for thinking that 'day' in Genesis refers to something other than what everyone else means by the term is really incredibly stupid. The default is that the author of Genesis meant by 'day' exactly what we do. And given that reasonable assumption it is not remotely reasonable to assume that Genesis is about the creation of this world.
Tip: if you are driven to play the extreme sceptic card when confronted by an argument for an interesting proposition, then you've lost.

Yes, I am sure you do. And that makes you a what? — Bartricks

Not really sure what you're referring to exactly by "yes, I'm sure you do." But if it is about me disagreeing with you, it just makes me someone with a different perspective I guess.

If its about God, it makes me spiritual. I'm not religious. I don't ascribe to any one religion in specific I think they all have some basic validity but also a lot of strict, stubborn specific dogmas that I don't agree with as they don't keep up with the progression of society.

We can argue our beliefs and personal assumptions for reasoning things, or determining what we think is immoral or immoral all day and night, for years, but in the end it doesn't mean we have to agree unanimously.

It just means we can accept, reject or offer a third option to whatever is discussed, all the while times change, culture changes, society advances and some lines of argument thus become obsolete while others become newly minted/available.
Fundamental arguments on the other had seem to persist throughout the millenia. We are still arguing about basics that were argued by plato, Aristotle etc. I doubt that will ch age any time soon.

It depends. Some things are known logically; they just seem self-evident, and any attempted questioning of them presupposes them. Other things are known by observation. Encyclopedias are full of "facts" which are conventional formulations of what is taken to be the store of human knowledge.There is obviously a distinction between belief and knowledge, but then on examination there are many things humans count as knowledge which would better be characterized as belief. — Janus

Absolutely Janus. I agree. I think belief and fact differ only by a matter of magnitude/scale/scope.
The more people that believe a belief, the more factual that becomes (the more easily it can be assumed/presupposed as obvious/evident).

Some beliefs however (whether poorly reasoned or unethical) are harder to accept as fact than others.
Things that are useful to humans are generally considered fact: money has value is considered collectively to be a fact, because if it didn't how would we be able to transact it for goods and services?

Money is a good example of a large scale belief system.
And what happens to the value of money when we lose confidence in it? When we lose our belief in its value due to fear or greater priorities - need for goods/physically useful objects for survival like food, water, fuel, medicines (in times of war and political upheaval for example - like now with the Russian - Ukraine war).

The answer is it "inflates" - becomes less valuable per product. What used to cost 10 €$£ now costs 20. Less "Bang for your buck".

However money doesn't have any actual intrinsic physical value other than the heat the paper could generate when burnt. It requires everyone who uses it to believe that this little flimsy note equals 20 somethings.

It's a good lesson in economics for sure. Economy is merely mass psychology in disguise.

If a billionaire was the only person left on the planet his/her money would be likely used to keep them warm during the long cold winters. What else would the paper pile be good for with no one else there?

It is interesting to come across someone who says that they believe in God but don't believe he created the world. So many people who believe in God believe in a creator. It may depend on what people mean by the idea of God, and so many perceive God in a very anthropomorphic way but there are other ways of seeing God, like that of Spinoza or the Hindu idea of Brahman.

Also, the Buddhists speak of higher consciousness, but not as an actual deity, so it may be that when people try to think about the idea of God they come from a stereotypical way of thinking based on church going beliefs rather than more imaginative ones. With many spiritual ideas, including the concept of God, such ideas were sometimes based on esoteric ones, rather than those adhered to in mainstream religious understanding.

No, I said that by 'God' I mean a person who is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent.

Now, what are you disagreeing with? Do you think I don't ,in fact, mean that by the term?

Er, I do. That's what I mean by the term. I'm an expert - the world's leading expert - on what I mean by the term 'God'. And that's what I mean.

Now, if YOU don't use the word 'God' in that way, why the hell would I care? All that means is that you use a word differently. Use it however the bloody hell you want. Use it to refer to your own bumhole if you want. The point is that that's not how I am using it here. Here it means what I say it does. It's my thread. So if you want to understand what I am saying, then you need to understand that I mean by 'God' an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenvolent person, not your bumhole. Ok? Sheesh.

My use of the term is also not unusual. And Christians certainly believe in God so defined. Christians also believe other things about God. But precisely why is exactly what I am questioning here. So, don't tell me what Christians believe. I am questioning the rationality of believing those additional things.

So, for instance, I am clearly well aware that most Christians believe that God created the world. I am questioning the rationality of that, given that nothing the bible says commits them to that additional claim and that additional claim operates to make their view less, not more plausible.

It's a good lesson in economics for sure. Economy is merely mass psychology in disguise. — Benj96

I agree with the rest of what you said there, Ben, but I think this view of economics as mass psychology is too limited. Psychology is a significant part of it to be sure, but there are real ecological constraints at work that are equally, if not more important.

An example is inflation. The traditional wisdom was that if a government prints money and injects it into the economy, that will cause inflation because there are is a certain quantity of available goods and services, and now, with more money available, more demand, which will push the prices up. But this is true only if there is not enough supply to meet demand, because if there is enough supply then there will be no incentive for people to pay more.

Jolly good. Now apply that to the bible. And then acknowledge that your case for thinking that 'day' in Genesis refers to something other than what everyone else means by the term is really incredibly stupid. — Bartricks

"Day" in Genesis is only taken by fundamental creationists to be literally a twenty four hour day. Most Christians today accept an evolutionary account of God's creation. In any case, what could a twenty four hour day even mean prior to the existence of human time measurement and the revolutions of the Earth they are based upon? What could such a paltry "day" mean to a God busy creating the heavens and the Earth?

If you don't make the very implausible assumption that God spoke literal cultural and context-independent meanings to humanity through the prophets and scribes who wrote the books of the Bible, then the question as to the relation of God's days to our days, and God's created heaven and Earth to our Heaven and Earth, and consequently your whole argument is moot; the Book of Genesis just represents a cosmological speculation made by those who were entirely innocent of our current scientific understanding of the universe.

The writer of Genesis employed the term 'day'. If I say 'day' you interpret me to mean a 24 hour period or thereabouts. That is the reasonable interpretation of the term.

Now, if you want you can insist that every single word in Genesis - hell, every single word anywhere - means something different. But that'd be unbelievably stupid and unjustified, yes?

there are real ecological constraints at work that are equally, if not more important — Janus

Yes you're absolutely right I didn't include that in the phrase: economics is mass psychology and the finite resources under its behaviour/influence.

The writer of Genesis employed the term 'day'. If I say 'day' you interpret me to mean a 24 hour period or thereabouts. That is the reasonable interpretation of the term.

Now, if you want you can insist that every single word in Genesis - hell, every single word anywhere - means something different. But that'd be unbelievably stupid and unjustified, yes? — Bartricks

I think most scriptures are intended to be interpreted metaphorically not literally. Parables, like children's stories, don't neccesarily have to refer to an actual event that ever occurred.

I doubt three little pigs ever built three different home, however the underlining message of "strength in numbers, and acknowledging the wisdom of others when due" is very applicable.

In the same way the most fundamental basics and meanings (specific details/exacting words aside) of all scriptures in most if not all religions has validity.

We must remember that the messages they wrote were culture/time dependent. They were written for, and read by, people of that time. They didn't have our modern day science and tech that discredits what's "literally written" but not what underlies figuratively .

Also let's not forget these books are seriously old. Like pre-printing press by thousands of years so they've been hand transcribed hundreds of times. Perhaps a lot of nonsense and errors were added in, in that time no, adding to the modern day ludicrousness?

Language evolves too so the meaning of words changes, some become obsolete, and new ones emerge making the text ever more interpretative and less accurate.

nt, and omnibenevolent.

Now, what are you disagreeing with? Do you think I don't ,in fact, mean that by the term?

Er, I do. That's what I mean by the term. I'm an expert - the world's leading expert - on what I mean by the term 'God'. And that's what I mean. — Bartricks

That's totally fine. Based on how you use the term - I disagree. I don't think a person can be omnipotent (they can't create stars, levitate or teleport), they can't be omnipresent (as they are a singular finite object) and they can't know everything that has ever occurred is occurring or ever will occur (they don't know what Janet just called her new baby across the world).

This concept of a God is absurd. I'm sure there are better versions of a god that could exist.

Makes more sense then to move on now that we agree that that idea is absurd and discuss better description and parameters we could give to such a term that seem more reasonable and plausible, more clout for argument.

That's totally fine. Based on how you use the term - I disagree. — Benj96

With what?

I don't think a person can be omnipotent (they can't create stars, levitate or teleport), they can't be omnipresent — Benj96

Read the OP and try and focus on what it is about.

:cool:

What do so-called game worlds (@schopenhauer1) have to contribute to this thread?

Apparently, @Bartricks' triple-Omni deity is not the scriptural "God of Abraham" but instead, as Pascal points out, a "god of philosophy" based on reason (rather than on will or faith). Leibniz, as you're perhaps aware, tries to square this circle, but only recreates a 'Scholastic' mess ... You're right, of course, trying to shoehorn the triple-O into the idea of a "person" is conceptually incoherent, which is problematic, I suppose, only for a "god of philosophy" rather than "the God of Abrahsm". The OP is just Bartrick's apologetic wank for an idea of "God" credible only to him/her.