Monotheism and Minds: Why Monotheism Is Untenable

[LMNO]

To build a really solid argument about the nature of God, you first would have to get all of your audience to agree on a definition of God... and since neither Dok Howl nor LMNO nor Twid nor I agree on the definition of God, I can tell you right now that's a fruitless endeavor when it comes to this board.

Basically, you could build an argument according to an "if...then" modus ponens structure, but I could almost lay money on people challenging the "if" no matter how you laid it out, unless you can find a specific argument (for example, the Christian book you refer to) that you are counterarguing (in which case you might find very limited interest in the topic among those here, because you won't be talking to us or about anything most of us are familiar with).

Yes, specificity.  "In the beliefs of [myth], there is a concept that God is a Mind before Matter, who spoke the universe into existence [reference and citation]. Here's my problem with that..."

At least that way, you're setting up a framework within which to talk.  If we want to discuss your argument, we must take it from the viewpoint of [myth], or else we're refuting a completely different idea. 

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

and since neither Dok Howl nor LMNO nor Twid nor I agree on the definition of God,

You guys should stop being wrong.  All I'm sayin'.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

and since neither Dok Howl nor LMNO nor Twid nor I agree on the definition of God,

You guys should stop being wrong.  All I'm sayin'.

That just gave me the biggest grin.

I hope you're right.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

But that is an important point. If you want to make a point about God, you have to describe what the strengths and limitations of this God is. There's a big difference between Yahweh and Aten and Ahura Mazda and Brahma and Spinoza's God and....

Even if you're not pinning it to Yahweh, you're still calling it a monotheistic God that created the Universe. That seems specific, but actually isn't. It's just a couple of fingers of parameters.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Note, limitations doesn't mean inability, but at least unwillingness. That's not necessarily an argument against omnipotence. Maybe God could create a paradox where he could make a rock he couldn't move, but why would he? Maybe he abhors paradoxes.

[Doktor Howl]

Note, limitations doesn't mean inability, but at least unwillingness. That's not necessarily an argument against omnipotence. Maybe God could create a paradox where he could make a rock he couldn't move, but why would he? Maybe he abhors paradoxes.

He abhors smartasses.  We're all fucked.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Note, limitations doesn't mean inability, but at least unwillingness. That's not necessarily an argument against omnipotence. Maybe God could create a paradox where he could make a rock he couldn't move, but why would he? Maybe he abhors paradoxes.

He abhors smartasses.  We're all fucked.

[Telarus]

 


Took me a while to get back to this thread. I wanted to clarify my position to LMNO & anyone who commented on my post.

I think this is the really interesting part of all of this. It says to me that the monolithic-self (i.e the narrative of self continuity), along with the monotheistic god (the narrative of singular-continuous deity) are 'illusions'.

I'm not sure where how you arrived there from

you can absolutely develop a language in isolation.

I was simply saying that a single person can develop a means of coding, storing, and recalling information absent any other person.

I do not consider Myself_Now to be the same person as Myself_ThePast or Myself_TheFuture. I think that "I" is a narrative-illusion, which is useful within certain contexts. If you've develop language vis-a-vis, patterns of symbols which can be decoded by any audience with the right context, you're communicating to others, even if they are your future iterations.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Took me a while to get back to this thread. I wanted to clarify my position to LMNO & anyone who commented on my post.

I think this is the really interesting part of all of this. It says to me that the monolithic-self (i.e the narrative of self continuity), along with the monotheistic god (the narrative of singular-continuous deity) are 'illusions'.

I'm not sure where how you arrived there from

you can absolutely develop a language in isolation.

I was simply saying that a single person can develop a means of coding, storing, and recalling information absent any other person.

I do not consider Myself_Now to be the same person as Myself_ThePast or Myself_TheFuture. I think that "I" is a narrative-illusion, which is useful within certain contexts. If you've develop language vis-a-vis, patterns of symbols which can be decoded by any audience with the right context, you're communicating to others, even if they are your future iterations.

However,  that still assumes an individual who happens to come from a social species and has a linguistic brain.

[LMNO]

Took me a while to get back to this thread. I wanted to clarify my position to LMNO & anyone who commented on my post.

I think this is the really interesting part of all of this. It says to me that the monolithic-self (i.e the narrative of self continuity), along with the monotheistic god (the narrative of singular-continuous deity) are 'illusions'.

I'm not sure where how you arrived there from

you can absolutely develop a language in isolation.

I was simply saying that a single person can develop a means of coding, storing, and recalling information absent any other person.

I do not consider Myself_Now to be the same person as Myself_ThePast or Myself_TheFuture. I think that "I" is a narrative-illusion, which is useful within certain contexts. If you've develop language vis-a-vis, patterns of symbols which can be decoded by any audience with the right context, you're communicating to others, even if they are your future iterations.

Sorry, have to say it:  Christ, what an asshole.

I find it hard to believe you do not see your life as a coherent narrative.

[Doktor Howl]

Took me a while to get back to this thread. I wanted to clarify my position to LMNO & anyone who commented on my post.

I think this is the really interesting part of all of this. It says to me that the monolithic-self (i.e the narrative of self continuity), along with the monotheistic god (the narrative of singular-continuous deity) are 'illusions'.

I'm not sure where how you arrived there from

you can absolutely develop a language in isolation.

I was simply saying that a single person can develop a means of coding, storing, and recalling information absent any other person.

I do not consider Myself_Now to be the same person as Myself_ThePast or Myself_TheFuture. I think that "I" is a narrative-illusion, which is useful within certain contexts. If you've develop language vis-a-vis, patterns of symbols which can be decoded by any audience with the right context, you're communicating to others, even if they are your future iterations.

Sorry, have to say it:  Christ, what an asshole.

I find it hard to believe you do not see your life as a coherent narrative.

Actually, I have to agree with the first sentence, although I could make no sense whatsoever out of the rest of it.

I'm a very much "in the now" kind of guy.  I was just last night realizing how hazy my memories have gotten, especially about shit that happened more than 10 years ago or so.  My brain is probably full.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Took me a while to get back to this thread. I wanted to clarify my position to LMNO & anyone who commented on my post.

I think this is the really interesting part of all of this. It says to me that the monolithic-self (i.e the narrative of self continuity), along with the monotheistic god (the narrative of singular-continuous deity) are 'illusions'.

I'm not sure where how you arrived there from

you can absolutely develop a language in isolation.

I was simply saying that a single person can develop a means of coding, storing, and recalling information absent any other person.

I do not consider Myself_Now to be the same person as Myself_ThePast or Myself_TheFuture. I think that "I" is a narrative-illusion, which is useful within certain contexts. If you've develop language vis-a-vis, patterns of symbols which can be decoded by any audience with the right context, you're communicating to others, even if they are your future iterations.

Sorry, have to say it:  Christ, what an asshole.

I find it hard to believe you do not see your life as a coherent narrative.

Actually, I have to agree with the first sentence, although I could make no sense whatsoever out of the rest of it.

I'm a very much "in the now" kind of guy.  I was just last night realizing how hazy my memories have gotten, especially about shit that happened more than 10 years ago or so.  My brain is probably full.

Living in the now is different in very significant ways from having continuity of personhood, which is more of a personality disorder issue.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

For example, people with Borderline Personality Disorder may feel disconnected from their past and future selves to such an extent that they become extremely insecure about their identities and constantly seek external validation.

[Doktor Howl]

Like I said, I couldn't make heads or tails out of anything after his first sentence.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Like I said, I couldn't make heads or tails out of anything after his first sentence.

It was a little disconnected, in a slightly concerning way.