Is it possible for a person to have no beliefs at all?

@fresco,

TYPO......that should have been.... "rocks" or "gods"

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

The definitions of the other words in your question are easy. There are dictionaries for it. "God" is unique in that it has no commonly agreed upon definition.
If you attempt to answer the question without sorting out what is meant by "gods" you will be repaying that laugh. A clear definition of the word will provide you with a simple yes or no answer to your question.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Quote:

The definitions of the other words in your question are easy. There are dictionaries for it. "God" is unique in that it has no commonly agreed upon definition.
If you attempt to answer the question without sorting out what is meant by "gods" you will be repaying that laugh. A clear definition of the word will provide you with a simple yes or no answer to your question.

Cyracuz, if you want to answer my question...answer it. If you would prefer not to answer it, simply say you do not want to answer it.

Is the existence of gods possible...or is the existence of gods an impossibility?

1 Reply

@fresco,

Some typo too. For a split second before I remembered who I was reading, I thought you were starting a new religion... "rocks are gods"! Smile

Could we say that reality is absolutely relative, or perhaps relatively absolute? What indications do we have that reality is either or?

A problem with Frank's question about gods is that we do not know the criteria for being called a god. I suspect there is only one; a being that can be called a god is a being we deem worthy of our worship. That is the main function of "god".

Imagine that a creature came to us one day and said: "I am Clax, I made this planet and all life on it". Would that make Clax god?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Did I not answer it? If the answer was not the "yes" or "no" you anticipated, could that perhaps be because the answer to this question requires us to ask additional questions?

If we do not define "gods", the answer to your question is that the existence of gods is possible. But I'll answer it based on my own understanding of what "god" means.
"God" is a human concept about something we cannot really understand, and that inaccessibility is part of the definition. It is a term that seeks to encompass the most paradoxical and incomprehensible aspects of our reality. We then apply this concept where and how we see fit.

So yes, the existence of gods is possible in the same way the existence of inches or kilograms is possible. But "gods" is to reality what "inches" is to distance and "kilograms" is to mass.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Quote:

Did I not answer it?

No, you did not.

Quote:

If the answer was not the "yes" or "no" you anticipated, could that perhaps be because the answer to this question requires us to ask additional questions?

You are saying you DID answer it...and now you are explaining why you did not answer it.

Quote:

If we do not define "gods", the answer to your question is that the existence of gods is possible. But I'll answer it based on my own understanding of what "god" means.

I think that is fair.

Quote:

"God" is a human concept about something we cannot really understand, and that inaccessibility is part of the definition. It is a term that seeks to encompass the most paradoxical and incomprehensible aspects of our reality. We then apply this concept where and how we see fit.

Okay.

Quote:

So yes, the existence of gods is possible...

Fine. Now here is the second part of the inquiry that you suggested you would answer.

Do gods exist?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Obviously, Cyracuz, that question was originally written: If "yes"...do they exist?

And I neglected to thank you for responding. Thank you!

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

The difficult philosophical point to comprehend is that words do not represent ontological entities even though in everyday terms we use them as though they did (Rorty etc). This position has its origins in phenomenology which has no requirement for a "noumenal world" as a substrate. Thus the word "god" is a token in a communicative transaction , (including self with oneself) It is like a dollar bill which is merely a token within a bartering transaction. The "dollar" has no absolute value. Its origin is as a negotiable promise of a quid pro quo. The only difference between "god" and "rock" is the jurisdiction of usage as in different currencies. The relatively universal "physicality" of "rocks" is a shared human cognitive expectancy based on a common physiology. But since expectancy about "God" has no agreed common basis, it only has (some) communicative value amongst theists, and "buys" nothing for atheists.

So "existence" (another word) also has no value in its own right. It is about jurisdiction of usage of other noun words. Questions like "do gods exist ?" translate as "does the concept of "gods" affect your thoughts,expectancies and communicative transactions ?". That is why the "agnostic" position is untenable. It's like sitting looking at a dollar bill and asking what it is "really" worth, as though the answer did not depend on local social agreement/bartering .

1 Reply

...the problem arising with most arguments against reality can fundamentally be reduced to a problem of double criteria in which some words are deemed as relative to usage while others are conveniently and subtly left standing as meaning exactly what they intend to mean...words like "gods" "reality" and such are continuously presented as being relative to usage and conceptual frames thus not addressing anything particular in its own right while words like "mind" "communication" "thought" and the like are portrait as the filters for the first set...obviously there is no good reason or justification for this double standard and such claims are no more informative then replacing the well know expression "all is mind" by "all is onions"...the thing here people don' t seam to understand again and again is that extreme relativism ends up invoking back an absolute background to make it all work...the so said "working" of "usage" is no exception...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Only YOU are evoking extreme relativism. That's "straw man" stuff.

My argument above reflects the view that "communication" and "physiological processes" can be agreed bases for what we call "cognition". From a systems viewpoint they may be seen as partially isomorphic or partially hierarchical. To deny a communicative base would be solipsistic and therefore aberrant on a communicative forum. In as much that "dynamic systems" have transitory stable states, those states can define what constitutes the "informational value" of exchange tokens at that time. What can be taken as "functionally axiomatic" at one level (physiological states say) can imply "relativity" at another (information). From this point of view, there is no epistemological requirement for an ultimate substrate in order for what we call "science" to have paradigmatically limited success, since paradigms are themselves transient.

2 Replies

@fresco,

I don' t care what it would be or look like, solipsist or not you must assume base values for your theory´s to have any meaning or bear any working interest, while the problem seams to be you have no way of justifying this...what you said makes absolutely no difference regarding my remarks...anyone paying attention will just come to the same conclusion, as for "others" I have no interest on their opinion...

Quote:

What can be taken as "functionally axiomatic" at one level (physiological states say) can imply "relativity" at another (information). From this point of view, there is no epistemological requirement for an ultimate substrate in order for what we call "science" to have paradigmatically limited success, since paradigms are themselves transient.

This could metaphorically speaking be called "relational geometry" and yes it has an ultimate substrate which is based on the relational potential between agents...down to earth the figure of speech is like saying that from a rats point of view an elephant is "big" as the same could be said between an ant and a rat...while the agents change in nature the sort or type of arising or emerging "relational status scale" is the same "geometrically" speaking that is...there is an absolute constant there !
( it just require some brains to figure it where)

...on another level this also can be described as qualitative finity inside quantitative infinity...or the abstract ontology contained relationally on phenomenology...

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

Questions like "do gods exist ?" translate as "does the concept of "gods" affect your thoughts,expectancies and communicative transactions ?".

I was thinking about Frank's last post and my reply to him as I was out driving. To the question of "do gods exist" I decided I'd answer with another question; "do meters exist"?

0 Replies

@fresco,

fresco, Excellent post on this topic. I agree 100%. Each individual's belief system is different by degrees based on their personal perceptions.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

My guess is that "gods", in the way most people understand that term, do not exist. I base the guess on the complete lack of evidence that the question is even valid. This, to my mind, has more to do with psychology than anything else.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

You wrote,

Quote:

you must assume base values for your theory´s to have any meaning

Outlandish statement! "Base values" differ from person to person, and their perception of it can be as varied as human thinking. "Meaning" is a byproduct of our limited biology and environment.

The idea of "base values" for any theory depends on individual perception.
That's the reason why humans have so many gods and religions.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

...you don´t come close to understand what I meant never mind the "bi- product" of arrogance implied...I suggest you to carefully re-read my previous post and do the best of it if you can...

1 Reply

@fresco,

...I am a resilient conceptual bastard you should conclude and now that the "virus" is implanted I am keen to see the long term reaction as (hopefully) I just end up re-writing your "comprehensive code source" Fresco... Laughing

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

I don't need to "re-read" anything. All posts should be able to stand on its own. To expect anyone to "go back" and re-read thousands of posts is idiotic.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

I send you back ONE post not thousands, as for what you need or not need is not up to me do what you will understand what you want...the post is tall and well standing I assure you ! (as for arguments ad hominem the only idiot here right now is you Cool

)

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Doesn't matter; I'm not here to count how many of your back posts I must read. Like I said, each post must stand on its own. If you want varied interpretation for any one post, you need to clarify that on your own.

1 Reply

Is it possible for a person to have no beliefs at all?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know