the_cave

I noticed a few of the threads were getting away from their thread topics, and hesitantly moving towards discussions about theistic conceptions of God that were nevertheless not "traditionally" Christian, by some people's definition. Let's call them non-orthodox theisms. Is it possible to meaningfully discuss theism, outside of a polemically Christian context?

Jobar

Welcome to II, the_cave.

In my experience, any serious discussion of EoG moves swiftly away from orthodoxies. I have found that no two believers believe in precisely the same God, even if they profess to do so. Even the Biblical literalists will pick and choose *which* parts of the Bible to take literally- because there are so many contradictions in it. The more liberal ones- known somewhat derisively as 'cafeteria Christians'- will take some of this part, some of that, and ignore the parts they don't like.

One of the sub-themes of this forum is attempting to find a definition of 'God' which all the theists here will agree to. So far, no luck. It seems being able to define something is not a requisite for believing in it.

luvluv

Jobar:

Would any two people give precisely the same description of you?

Philosoft

Probably not. But the two people in question could both point at Jobar and say, "That's Jobar."

luvluv

Sure, but let's say I didn't know Jobar, and am trying to get a sense of him solely on the word of the two people who knew him. Two people who met Jobar came away with different impressions of him and describe him differently. One even goes so far as to say the other's opinion of Jobar is objectively wrong.

Should I believe that Jobar doesn't exist?

(In answer to Jobar, I would say that being able to define something to the point where EVERYONE would agree with your definition is not a requisite for believing in it. Otherwise, none of us would believe anything.)

diana

luvluv,

The point you're missing is that it isn't the various characteristics of God, that no two Xns agree upon, that provoke us to atheism. It is the fact that the characteristics we've been told he has are mutually exclusive.

Nice red herring, though.

d

luvluv

Suppose I told you that Jobar was black. And Philosoft told you Jobar was white. I believe that Philosoft is wrong, and Philosoft thinks that I am wrong. White and black are mutually exclusive.

Does Jobar exist?

Jobar

Ah, but I make no pretensions of being unchanging and absolute, luvluv. I change from day to day, moment to moment.

the_cave, I think it possible that this discussion is not going in the direction you may have meant it to. Please, expand on your original comments. Have you any thoughts or suggestions on meaningfully discussing theism, outside the standard Christian dogmas?

luvluv

Jobar:

I think the principle remains the same. Even if you are exactly the same all the time it is possible for two different people to describe you differently, even in mutually exclusive ways. It could mean that one of them is simply mistaken. It could mean that one of them subjectively values one of your characteristics over another and therefore chooses to overemphasize this characteristic.

In no way does it follow that what they are describing does not exist.

Jobar

So, luvluv, are you saying that an infinite being can be described in infinitely many ways? (Think about that carefully, now- it is a very loaded question!)