Monotheism and Minds: Why Monotheism Is Untenable

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Yeah, but he said the YHWH thing didn't count as an example, when he mentioned the Elohim. 

So, the sticking point for me is, exactly who is claiming that god was an isolated Mind Before Matter when it created the universe?  So far, I haven't seen any creation myth that has that as part of the story.

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.

Say a person is in isolation, on an island.  We'll hand-wave the fact that solitary humans don't have a high survival rate, and stay focused.  This person has a pen of goats, and he lets them out in the morning, and pens them up at night.  In order to make sure all the goats are there, when he lets them out in the morning, he puts a stone in a bucket each time a goat walks through the gate. At night, he takes a stone back out as each one walks back in.

That stone is a form of language.  It's a word.  It's coded to mean, "this is a goat," or simply, "goat".
The bucket is also a word.  It means, "field".

A stone in a bucket means, "a goat is in the field".  If there are extra stones left over in the bucket at the end of the day, he's telling himself that "there's a goat missing."  This is one form of language that can develop in isolation.

And you can easily show it's a form of communication, because if there were two people on the island, one of them could put the stones in the bucket in the morning, and the other one could take the stones out at night, and the second person would immediately know if there was a goat missing, without having to speak to the first person.

The only problem I have with this scenario (aside from the obvious, which you already addressed) is that it assumes "a person", and further, it assumes a person whose development included enough of a social background to herd goats. People are linguistic creatures, that's part of our nature, assuming we're raised with language (and to set aside that assumption opens a can of worms).

What I'm saying is that language isn't necessary for thought. In fact, in order to be communicated, thought must be translated into language. It is possible, due to brain damage, to lose the ability to speak or understand language, but people with this kind of brain damage still think; they still know what things are, and can conceptualize the future. They simply lose the ability to communicate with symbols.

Even if we are to accept the premise that the question of whether monotheism makes sense is meaningful, whether it is possible for a solitary entity to form language is not relevant to whether a solitary entity can think.

I find this conversation interesting because I like the opportunity to examine the assumption sets that show up. However, ultimately, if we are talking about a supernatural all-knowing being that creates earth and humanity and all the animals and therefore also language and society, arguing about whether that supernatural entity follows the development patterns of social mammals seems a little like begging the question.

[LMNO]

Two very good points.  I absolutely agree that language is not necessary for thought.  At first, found it difficult to come up with personal situations where I think without language, but then I realized that when I play music, I'm often not using language to create the rhythms.  I guess my point was in response to the OP, that seemed to state language could not develop in isolation.

And yes, it is a bit arrogant to assume an omnipotent creator entity would have the same mental development as a human.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Two very good points.  I absolutely agree that language is not necessary for thought.  At first, found it difficult to come up with personal situations where I think without language, but then I realized that when I play music, I'm often not using language to create the rhythms.  I guess my point was in response to the OP, that seemed to state language could not develop in isolation.

And yes, it is a bit arrogant to assume an omnipotent creator entity would have the same mental development as a human.

I think that we can fairly safely agree that the idea that there can be no mind without language lacks support.

I tend to find that I think in language only when I'm thinking specifically of communicating ideas, but otherwise tend to be a more visual/spacial/conceptual thinker.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Two very good points.  I absolutely agree that language is not necessary for thought.  At first, found it difficult to come up with personal situations where I think without language, but then I realized that when I play music, I'm often not using language to create the rhythms.  I guess my point was in response to the OP, that seemed to state language could not develop in isolation.

And yes, it is a bit arrogant to assume an omnipotent creator entity would have the same mental development as a human.

I think that we can fairly safely agree that the idea that there can be no mind without language lacks support.

I tend to find that I think in language only when I'm thinking specifically of communicating ideas, but otherwise tend to be a more visual/spacial/conceptual thinker.

I had to think about whether or not I switch, because the only time I notice that I'm thinking, my mind is speaking the thought. Then I got a piece of bread and there was no auditory component to the sound, even though my mind is essentially dictating what I'm typing to my hands. But then again that's because I'm having to organize my thoughts in a way that I can send them. I guess I just automatically assumed that I mostly heard my thoughts. Now if I can figure out how to use that to turn off the radio...

[QueenThera]

Interesting stuff! To clarify, I was trying to discuss a monotheistic God apart from Abrahamic faith. Basically, I was assuming that thought requires language, and that one cannot create anything, ex nihilo or not, without thinking. At the least, not the god of Creationism, which I suppose was the entire point of the initial post.

And now it's fairly moot, since evidently people can think without thought. I've never caught myself doing that, personally, but I cannot speak for others. And the idea of a written language being developed for speaking with oneself is also a good solution. It reminds me of The Electronic Revolution essay.

[hooplala]

I think Hoops and I could have some good conversations, if he could just get over his apparent hard-on for Telling Nigel To Be Nice.

Hoops, I have to tell you, I might say things people don't want to hear, but I haven't actually been a mean bastard since around May 2011.

When have I ever "told" you to be nice before today?

Unless I'm mistaken, you have made at least one other "ease up on the noob" post directed toward me in the last few weeks, so I wound up with a bit of that impression.

Nigel, you happen to be one of my favorite people here, but all I'm getting from you in this thread (more so in the beginning, to be fair) is "nobody read the OP, and by the way the OP is derp anyway". 

I was addressing the two people who had replied at that point, who are LMNO and Twid. I replied that way because
A: They seemed to be replying to the OP as if it were a criticism of Judeochristian religion specifically, which it wasn't, and
B. because in my opinion the OP is of limited value because of three specific assumptions that it appears to make, which I then spelled out.

I'm sincerely sorry if I've given you the impression I wanted you to play nice.

Apology accepted. I want to clarify that the only thing that bothered me was that what you seemed to be arguing against wasn't the content of my posts, but the tone of the delivery of the content. To me, that says you are reading my posts in a hostile, aggressive tone. I'm not sure what I could do, other than adding obsequious phrasing like "I'm so sorry, I might be wrong about this, but...", to change the tone, and I'm not willing to do that.

I'm tired and perhaps a little cranky today. I apologize for slagging the thread up, OP ask for a thread snip if it bothers you.

No worries, that's up to BrotherPrickle.

Pretty certain that must have been someone else who told you to ease up on any earlier noobs. Everything else, I agree completely.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I think Hoops and I could have some good conversations, if he could just get over his apparent hard-on for Telling Nigel To Be Nice.

Hoops, I have to tell you, I might say things people don't want to hear, but I haven't actually been a mean bastard since around May 2011.

When have I ever "told" you to be nice before today?

Unless I'm mistaken, you have made at least one other "ease up on the noob" post directed toward me in the last few weeks, so I wound up with a bit of that impression.

Nigel, you happen to be one of my favorite people here, but all I'm getting from you in this thread (more so in the beginning, to be fair) is "nobody read the OP, and by the way the OP is derp anyway". 

I was addressing the two people who had replied at that point, who are LMNO and Twid. I replied that way because
A: They seemed to be replying to the OP as if it were a criticism of Judeochristian religion specifically, which it wasn't, and
B. because in my opinion the OP is of limited value because of three specific assumptions that it appears to make, which I then spelled out.

I'm sincerely sorry if I've given you the impression I wanted you to play nice.

Apology accepted. I want to clarify that the only thing that bothered me was that what you seemed to be arguing against wasn't the content of my posts, but the tone of the delivery of the content. To me, that says you are reading my posts in a hostile, aggressive tone. I'm not sure what I could do, other than adding obsequious phrasing like "I'm so sorry, I might be wrong about this, but...", to change the tone, and I'm not willing to do that.

I'm tired and perhaps a little cranky today. I apologize for slagging the thread up, OP ask for a thread snip if it bothers you.

No worries, that's up to BrotherPrickle.

Pretty certain that must have been someone else who told you to ease up on any earlier noobs. Everything else, I agree completely.

Oh OK, sorry about that then.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

And now it's fairly moot, since evidently people can think without thought.

People can think without language. To be clear. I am assuming that this is just a slip o'the tongue, so to speak, but just to make sure...

[QueenThera]

And now it's fairly moot, since evidently people can think without thought.

People can think without language. To be clear. I am assuming that this is just a slip o'the tongue, so to speak, but just to make sure...

...I cannot create a post without saying something stupid, can I? Damn.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

And now it's fairly moot, since evidently people can think without thought.

People can think without language. To be clear. I am assuming that this is just a slip o'the tongue, so to speak, but just to make sure...

...I cannot create a post without saying something stupid, can I? Damn.

Ha! It happens.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

And now it's fairly moot, since evidently people can think without thought.

People can think without language. To be clear. I am assuming that this is just a slip o'the tongue, so to speak, but just to make sure...

...I cannot create a post without saying something stupid, can I? Damn.

That's another interesting thing about the mind and language. Sometimes the mind just jumps the sentence and knocks over a word or two in the process. Happens all the time, even to the most deliberate communicator.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

And now it's fairly moot, since evidently people can think without thought.

People can think without language. To be clear. I am assuming that this is just a slip o'the tongue, so to speak, but just to make sure...

...I cannot create a post without saying something stupid, can I? Damn.

That's another interesting thing about the mind and language. Sometimes the mind just jumps the sentence and knocks over a word or two in the process. Happens all the time, even to the most deliberate communicator.

The funny thing is, when two people are on the same wavelength, the other person might not even notice because they were anticipating, and therefore heard, what the other person MEANT to say, rather than what they actually said.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

And now it's fairly moot, since evidently people can think without thought.

People can think without language. To be clear. I am assuming that this is just a slip o'the tongue, so to speak, but just to make sure...

...I cannot create a post without saying something stupid, can I? Damn.

That's another interesting thing about the mind and language. Sometimes the mind just jumps the sentence and knocks over a word or two in the process. Happens all the time, even to the most deliberate communicator.

The funny thing is, when two people are on the same wavelength, the other person might not even notice because they were anticipating, and therefore heard, what the other person MEANT to say, rather than what they actually said.

I've noticed that in written communication when you revisit the conversation. You don't notice the errors at the time, but when you go back it's like, wait, ohh... right. How did I not catch that before? It's like catching your own autocorrect errors after the fact, except someone else made them

[Doktor Howl]

And now it's fairly moot, since evidently people can think without thought.

People can think without language. To be clear. I am assuming that this is just a slip o'the tongue, so to speak, but just to make sure...

...I cannot create a post without saying something stupid, can I? Damn.

It's your avatar.  Makes ya dumb.

[QueenThera]

And now it's fairly moot, since evidently people can think without thought.

People can think without language. To be clear. I am assuming that this is just a slip o'the tongue, so to speak, but just to make sure...

...I cannot create a post without saying something stupid, can I? Damn.

That's another interesting thing about the mind and language. Sometimes the mind just jumps the sentence and knocks over a word or two in the process. Happens all the time, even to the most deliberate communicator.

The funny thing is, when two people are on the same wavelength, the other person might not even notice because they were anticipating, and therefore heard, what the other person MEANT to say, rather than what they actually said.

I've noticed that in written communication when you revisit the conversation. You don't notice the errors at the time, but when you go back it's like, wait, ohh... right. How did I not catch that before? It's like catching your own autocorrect errors after the fact, except someone else made them

I have seen similar kinds of things in my chat logs.

It's disturbing to find out first-hand how inscrutable your own thought process is to others.

Ahem. Back on the topic that I sorta started? I was defining God as Mind preceding Matter. By God, I meant the Creator implied by Creationism and the Finely-Tuned Universe, the opponent to militant atheists like Dawkins. God exists before the Big Bang in this scenario, and thus probably precedes matter. I suppose the question, put better, was how a Mind could exist without a social context.

Nigel has noted that I almost implied God needs an evolutionary context to emerge from. Well, now I state it outright: I am not sure how you can have a mind WITHOUT a social context to emerge from. The organizers of raw primordial soup that you see in polytheistic myths (including the pluralistic take on Elohim) strike me as closer to early humans founding civilization than to watchmakers building their watches. A watchmaker implies a whole culture outside himself. I was using language as a short-hand for the need for other people: I speak because I expect others to listen. As has been noted, time-binding can explain language just fine.

Now...does the definition of Monotheist God as Mind preceding Matter hold water? How wrong is it to assume the first Mind needed to be one of many?

And why does Doktor Howl hate my avatar? One too many fans of Discord shitting up the forums?