God Creation

[honorentheos]

In all seriousness, your post made me think about language as a whole as the process of assigning signifiers to that which is signified as you described rather well. With concrete objects like "apples' (ha ha, there's a throwback some might remember) the association has the benefit of something one can observe with their other senses to refine their associated signifier in addition to what other people say when they use the same. Concepts get trickier. God, being a concept, is much like love or humanity, our relative place in the universe or humor. The thing being signified isn't directly observable so we rely on attempts to represent how others conceive it in addition to how they describe it. We look at our own experiences to find what matches and assign to it the signifier the same way we learn to associate "apple" with an apple, but without the benefit of a thing that could be observed independent of others explanations or ones own associations.

So I think one of the keys to what you note is how there does not seem to be a universally accessible experience of "God" to which people align their conceptual ideas. This makes the probability there is something independent of people's experiences that they call "God" seem less likely.

[Gadianton]

This is one of the dumbest things you've ever posted. Congrats.

He was being sarcastic and it was obvious, just saying.

[Some Schmo]

This is one of the dumbest things you've ever posted. Congrats.

He was being sarcastic and it was obvious, just saying.

Yes, it's obvious to me now too. Thanks for making me feel even dumber about it. I deserve it.

[Some Schmo]

We look at our own experiences to find what matches and assign to it the signifier the same way we learn to associate "apple" with an apple, but without the benefit of a thing that could be observed independent of others explanations or ones own associations.

Excellent way to put it, yeah.

[honorentheos]

This is one of the dumbest things you've ever posted. Congrats.

He was being sarcastic and it was obvious, just saying.

I can't rule it out now that there are witnesses affirming I had potentially meant it sincerely. I have to give it 50-50 now just to be fair.

[honorentheos]

We look at our own experiences to find what matches and assign to it the signifier the same way we learn to associate "apple" with an apple, but without the benefit of a thing that could be observed independent of others explanations or ones own associations.

Excellent way to put it, yeah.

The same issue extends to all conceptual ideas that in fact carry immense weight. Community, family, democracy, freedom, justice, prejudice, fairness, good, bad...some of us think the WoW should be taken literally, some think it's really about drinkable caffeine and cigarettes, others it's really a guideline like it says, others that it needs updated and made more strict. Who is right? Of course the instinct is to just dismiss it all as BS. But applying the same approach to everything where others have different views of fundamental concepts eventually leaves us without a society. That being a very oversimplified version of post-modernism. Bro? Bro.

[Some Schmo]

Excellent way to put it, yeah.

The same issue extends to all conceptual ideas that in fact carry immense weight. Community, family, democracy, freedom, justice, prejudice, fairness, good, bad...some of us think the WoW should be taken literally, some think it's really about drinkable caffeine and cigarettes, others it's really a guideline like it says, others that it needs updated and made more strict. Who is right? Of course the instinct is to just dismiss it all as BS. But applying the same approach to everything where others have different views of fundamental concepts eventually leaves us without a society. That being a very oversimplified version of post-modernism. Bro? Bro.

Well, yes and no. Things like community, family, etc are fairly observable concepts, as non-concrete as they are. The evidence for community and family is apparent, unlike that of the various god concepts. I'm convinced we all have unique definitions of the concepts you listed, but that's just us interpreting the actual evidence for them differently. When I say "family," every English speaking person knows fundamentally what I'm talking about. We all think about family in different ways, but there's a real-world concrete concept of what a family is that everyone accepts: people who are related biologically. Where it goes from there is up to every family who participates. And of course, people will extend those basic definitions in ways others would avoid at all costs.

The same can't be said for a concept like gods. There is no starting point everyone can agree on.

[Chap]

[...] God, being a concept, [...]

If the words 'god' or 'God' really did refer to an at least partially clear concept whenever it was used (even if it took some effort to discover what its referent was), then quite a few of my problems about using such words would be decreased in severity. But all too often it seems to be no more than a sound with little more real reference than if the person speaking the word had simply belched or broken wind behind while looking vaguely pious instead of uttering it.

[MeDotOrg]

We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are."
-- Anais Nin

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are."
-- Anais Nin

Apparently that’s true on a physics and psychological level. <- I watched, like, three Donald Hoffman videos. For your perusal:

https://www.google.com/search?q=donald+ ... video#ip=1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_D._Hoffman

- Doc