"They all worship the same God"

[DBT]

If they all worship the same ''God," being car owners, we all have a car, each and every car is a Car, therefore we all drive the same ''Car.''

 

[Jokodo]

If they all worship the same ''God," being car owners, we all have a car, each and every car is a Car, therefore we all drive the same ''Car.''

This analogy sucks, if for no other reason than that worshipping something is not the same as physically possessing something.

Trotzkyists are firmly convinced that Lenin would turn in his grave if he found out what the Stalinist regimes did in his name. Stalinists are eqully convinced that Lenin would turn in his grave if he heard what positions Trotzkyists ascribe to him. It doesn't follow that they disagree about who led the Russian October Revolution.

 

[DBT]

If they all worship the same ''God," being car owners, we all have a car, each and every car is a Car, therefore we all drive the same ''Car.''

This analogy sucks, if for no other reason than that worshipping something is not the same as physically possessing something.

I think you've missed the point, A belief in the existence of something is a psychological possession. It is something held to be true. Often it is an extremely cherished belief. People hold such a strong belief in their truth of their God that they are willing to kill, or die, for that belief.

Trotzkyists are firmly convinced that Lenin would turn in his grave if he found out what the Stalinist regimes did in his name. Stalinists are eqully convinced that Lenin would turn in his grave if he heard what positions Trotzkyists ascribe to him. It doesn't follow that they disagree about who led the Russian October Revolution.

Not quite the same. Both parties hold a set of beliefs that they naturally assume is true. They are all in possession (psychological) of a set of beliefs which they hold dear. Probably more so than some of their material possessions, which they'd sooner choose to relinquish than their beliefs....

 

[Jokodo]

This analogy sucks, if for no other reason than that worshipping something is not the same as physically possessing something.

I think you've missed the point, A belief in the existence of something is a psychological possession. It is something held to be true. Often it is an extremely cherished belief. People hold such a strong belief in their truth of their God that they are willing to kill, or die, for that belief.

Trotzkyists are firmly convinced that Lenin would turn in his grave if he found out what the Stalinist regimes did in his name. Stalinists are eqully convinced that Lenin would turn in his grave if he heard what positions Trotzkyists ascribe to him. It doesn't follow that they disagree about who led the Russian October Revolution.

Not quite the same. Both parties hold a set of beliefs that they naturally assume is true. They are all in possession (psychological) of a set of beliefs which they hold dear. Probably more so than some of their material possessions, which they'd sooner choose to relinquish than their beliefs....

No, you missed the point. Whether their beliefs differ is not at issue. Of course they do. Nobody said otherwise. The question is, do their differing beliefs refer to the same entity, even if they ascribe to some extent different properties to it? You don't seem to be arguing against that in the real world case, so why in the god(s) case?

 

[DBT]

I think you've missed the point, A belief in the existence of something is a psychological possession. It is something held to be true. Often it is an extremely cherished belief. People hold such a strong belief in their truth of their God that they are willing to kill, or die, for that belief.

Trotzkyists are firmly convinced that Lenin would turn in his grave if he found out what the Stalinist regimes did in his name. Stalinists are eqully convinced that Lenin would turn in his grave if he heard what positions Trotzkyists ascribe to him. It doesn't follow that they disagree about who led the Russian October Revolution.

Not quite the same. Both parties hold a set of beliefs that they naturally assume is true. They are all in possession (psychological) of a set of beliefs which they hold dear. Probably more so than some of their material possessions, which they'd sooner choose to relinquish than their beliefs....

No, you missed the point. Whether their beliefs differ is not at issue. Of course they do. Nobody said otherwise. The question is, do their differing beliefs refer to the same entity, even if they ascribe to some extent different properties to it? You don't seem to be arguing against that in the real world case, so why in the god(s) case?

I not only seem to, I am arguing that practically each and every instance of a belief in God does not relate to others because the believer has his/her own set of ideas about the nature of God....hence the car analogy. An analogy that has already been used by a poster in this thread using the Ferrari label to argue that they all worship the same god.

If I take a Ferrari, and add and remove parts from it, it is still a ferrari.

 

[Jokodo]

I think you've missed the point, A belief in the existence of something is a psychological possession. It is something held to be true. Often it is an extremely cherished belief. People hold such a strong belief in their truth of their God that they are willing to kill, or die, for that belief.

Trotzkyists are firmly convinced that Lenin would turn in his grave if he found out what the Stalinist regimes did in his name. Stalinists are eqully convinced that Lenin would turn in his grave if he heard what positions Trotzkyists ascribe to him. It doesn't follow that they disagree about who led the Russian October Revolution.

Not quite the same. Both parties hold a set of beliefs that they naturally assume is true. They are all in possession (psychological) of a set of beliefs which they hold dear. Probably more so than some of their material possessions, which they'd sooner choose to relinquish than their beliefs....

No, you missed the point. Whether their beliefs differ is not at issue. Of course they do. Nobody said otherwise. The question is, do their differing beliefs refer to the same entity, even if they ascribe to some extent different properties to it? You don't seem to be arguing against that in the real world case, so why in the god(s) case?

I not only seem to, I am arguing that practically each and every instance of a belief in God does not relate to others because the believer has his/her own set of ideas about the nature of God....hence the car analogy. An analogy that has already been used by a poster in this thread using the Ferrari label to argue that they all worship the same god.

Each and every self-identified Leninist has his/her own set of ideas about Lenin's character, intentions, etc. This does not imply that they refer to different people when they talking about "Lenin".

 

[DBT]

I think you've missed the point, A belief in the existence of something is a psychological possession. It is something held to be true. Often it is an extremely cherished belief. People hold such a strong belief in their truth of their God that they are willing to kill, or die, for that belief.

Trotzkyists are firmly convinced that Lenin would turn in his grave if he found out what the Stalinist regimes did in his name. Stalinists are eqully convinced that Lenin would turn in his grave if he heard what positions Trotzkyists ascribe to him. It doesn't follow that they disagree about who led the Russian October Revolution.

Not quite the same. Both parties hold a set of beliefs that they naturally assume is true. They are all in possession (psychological) of a set of beliefs which they hold dear. Probably more so than some of their material possessions, which they'd sooner choose to relinquish than their beliefs....

No, you missed the point. Whether their beliefs differ is not at issue. Of course they do. Nobody said otherwise. The question is, do their differing beliefs refer to the same entity, even if they ascribe to some extent different properties to it? You don't seem to be arguing against that in the real world case, so why in the god(s) case?

I not only seem to, I am arguing that practically each and every instance of a belief in God does not relate to others because the believer has his/her own set of ideas about the nature of God....hence the car analogy. An analogy that has already been used by a poster in this thread using the Ferrari label to argue that they all worship the same god.

Each and every self-identified Leninist has his/her own set of ideas about Lenin's character, intentions, etc. This does not imply that they refer to different people when they talking about "Lenin".

Lenin was an actual man with his own set of physical attributes and psychological makeup. So if some Leninist's have their own ideas about Lenin, their own set of beliefs in regard to Lenin and his attributes and makeup, ideas that have no relationship to the actual Lenin and his attributes and makeup, it is these Leninists that have created their own version of Lenin, an entirely different Lenin to the actual Lenin, with just the label 'Lenin' being retained as a link.

 

[Jokodo]

I think you've missed the point, A belief in the existence of something is a psychological possession. It is something held to be true. Often it is an extremely cherished belief. People hold such a strong belief in their truth of their God that they are willing to kill, or die, for that belief.

Trotzkyists are firmly convinced that Lenin would turn in his grave if he found out what the Stalinist regimes did in his name. Stalinists are eqully convinced that Lenin would turn in his grave if he heard what positions Trotzkyists ascribe to him. It doesn't follow that they disagree about who led the Russian October Revolution.

Not quite the same. Both parties hold a set of beliefs that they naturally assume is true. They are all in possession (psychological) of a set of beliefs which they hold dear. Probably more so than some of their material possessions, which they'd sooner choose to relinquish than their beliefs....

No, you missed the point. Whether their beliefs differ is not at issue. Of course they do. Nobody said otherwise. The question is, do their differing beliefs refer to the same entity, even if they ascribe to some extent different properties to it? You don't seem to be arguing against that in the real world case, so why in the god(s) case?

I not only seem to, I am arguing that practically each and every instance of a belief in God does not relate to others because the believer has his/her own set of ideas about the nature of God....hence the car analogy. An analogy that has already been used by a poster in this thread using the Ferrari label to argue that they all worship the same god.

Each and every self-identified Leninist has his/her own set of ideas about Lenin's character, intentions, etc. This does not imply that they refer to different people when they talking about "Lenin".

Lenin was an actual man with his own set of physical attributes and psychological makeup. So if some Leninist's have their own ideas about Lenin, their own set of beliefs in regard to Lenin and his attributes and makeup, ideas that have no relationship to the actual Lenin and his attributes and makeup, it is these Leninists that have created their own version of Lenin, an entirely different Lenin to the actual Lenin, with just the label 'Lenin' being retained as a link.

The Jovian moon Callisto may or may not have a subsurface ocean of liquid water. Yet, it is an actual celestial body with an actual set of physical attributes. So if some astronomers have their own ideas, their own set of beliefs, that mismatch the physical reality (whichever it turns out to be), it is these astronomers that have created their own version of Calllisto, an entirely different entity to the actual Callisto, with just the label "Callisto" being retained as a link.

Sounds like an absurd argument? Because it is. Two people having mismatching beliefs about an entity does not mean that they are referring to different entities.

 

[DBT]

The Jovian moon Callisto may or may not have a subsurface ocean of liquid water. Yet, it is an actual celestial body with an actual set of physical attributes. So if some astronomers have their own ideas, their own set of beliefs, that mismatch the physical reality (whichever it turns out to be), it is these astronomers that have created their own version of Calllisto, an entirely different entity to the actual Callisto, with just the label "Callisto" being retained as a link.

Sounds like an absurd argument? Because it is. Two people having mismatching beliefs about an entity does not mean that they are referring to different entities.

Your analogy misses the point, the erroneous version of Callisto is not the actual Callisto. The Jovian moon Callisto actually exists, but as the erroneous version does not relate to the actual version, the erroneous version of Callisto is not the actual Callisto. If one set of scientists believe that Callisto has a tropical climate with oceans and tourist resorts (to exaggerate the point), it is obviously a different Callisto to the one that scientists believe has a heavily cratered surface and thin atmosphere. There are two versions of Callisto, If one version is true, the other must be false. They cannot both be true.

 

[Jokodo]

The Jovian moon Callisto may or may not have a subsurface ocean of liquid water. Yet, it is an actual celestial body with an actual set of physical attributes. So if some astronomers have their own ideas, their own set of beliefs, that mismatch the physical reality (whichever it turns out to be), it is these astronomers that have created their own version of Calllisto, an entirely different entity to the actual Callisto, with just the label "Callisto" being retained as a link.

Sounds like an absurd argument? Because it is. Two people having mismatching beliefs about an entity does not mean that they are referring to different entities.

Your analogy misses the point, the erroneous version of Callisto is not the actual Callisto. The Jovian moon Callisto actually exists, but as the erroneous version does not relate to the actual version, the erroneous version of Callisto is not the actual Callisto. If one set of scientists believe that Callisto has a tropical climate with oceans and tourist resorts (to exaggerate the point), it is obviously a different Callisto to the one that scientists believe has a heavily cratered surface and thin atmosphere. There are two versions of Callisto, If one version is true, the other must be false. They cannot both be true.

Of course the representations can not both be true. But they're still representations of the same object, one of them erroneous but with the same referent. Otherwise you'd have to conclude that someone claiming there are palm beaches on Callisto cannot be said to be wrong because he is referring to a different Callisto for which this holds (fictional or otherwise).

 

[DBT]

Your analogy misses the point, the erroneous version of Callisto is not the actual Callisto. The Jovian moon Callisto actually exists, but as the erroneous version does not relate to the actual version, the erroneous version of Callisto is not the actual Callisto. If one set of scientists believe that Callisto has a tropical climate with oceans and tourist resorts (to exaggerate the point), it is obviously a different Callisto to the one that scientists believe has a heavily cratered surface and thin atmosphere. There are two versions of Callisto, If one version is true, the other must be false. They cannot both be true.

Of course the representations can not both be true. But they're still representations of the same object, one of them erroneous but with the same referent. Otherwise you'd have to conclude that someone claiming there are palm beaches on Callisto cannot be said to be wrong because he is referring to a different Callisto for which this holds (fictional or otherwise).

One version is a fair representation of Callisto. But the other, not being based on evidence, bears no resemblance to the actual Callisto. Not bearing any resemblance to the actual Callisto, or the model that is justified by evidence, it is an entirely different Callisto. It's a fictional version of Callisto, a mental construct shaped and formed by a set of unjustified beliefs.

Which reminds me of an old claim, that the Moon is a hollow artifact built by aliens, which was parked into Earth orbit for the purpose of developing higher forms of life. Which does not appear to represent the actual Moon, or the current model of the Moon based on available evidence (which seeks to represent the Moon as accurately as possible). It is an entirely different Moon. A fictional Moon. A Moon shaped and formed as a mental construct by a set of unjustified beliefs. It is a Moon that does not exist.

'Mental constructs based on contradictory sets of unjustified beliefs' may be applied to all the contradictory versions of 'God.' Being so contradictory, that it cannot be claimed that "they all worship the same God"

 

[Perspicuo]

If they all worship the same ''God," being car owners, we all have a car, each and every car is a Car, therefore we all drive the same ''Car.''

I see Jokodo's point but you too have a GREAT one here illustrated with a very good example.

I would also add that calling their god "God" was one of the most brilliant marketing ploys ever performed. It gives the impression differing views are wrong but a "God" is beyond that. Well played, Christians, well played.

It seems to me the Triune God, the Muslim monolithic God and the Mormon primus-inter-pares God are logically not the same, and that would place the equivalence of mainstream(ish) Christian God concepts as a doubtlessly open question.

 

[Wiploc]

That is; Jesus is either Divine (within context), or he is not. The two positions are irreconcilable.

Christianity is shot thru with irreconcilable contradictions, so this can hardly be a sticking point.

You either missed the point or decided to go with a smokescreen.

I don't happen to agree with him, but is uncalled for.

 

[Wiploc]

What I don't see is the *pope* himfuckingself explaining how [emphasis added]

How isn't the issue. It's all nonsense. There can't be any logical explanation of how they believe nonsense.

they worship the same God given the entirely different characteristics of their two opposing versions of God.

If you have to exaggerate to make your case, then you don't have a case. The characteristics are different, but not entirely different.

One version, Christian, being a Triune God composed of the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost. And the other, Allah is not a Triune God and the so called son is merely another prophet of God.

If they agree that Jehovah and Allah are the same person, and they disagree as to whether Jesus is part of that person, then it is arguable that they believe in the same god while disagreeing about important details.

The two versions are simply not compatible, not semantically, not logically and not actually should either form of God exist. It cannot be both, regardless of what the *pope* himfuckingself has said.

You are absolutely right: the two versions (of the one Abrahamic god?) are not compatible. They cannot both be true. One version could be true and the other false, or they could both be false. That doesn't necessarily make them two different gods.

dystopian, you can settle this dispute simply by reconciling the two opposing versions by explaining how

How isn't the issue. You'd have a stronger argument if you claimed that they shouldn't believe their gods are one and the same. But if the question is whether they do believe the god(s) is/are one, then the answer is that most of them believe they are the same god.

Since the god(s) doesn't/don't actually exist, then their beliefs about the god are its only reality. And in their beliefs, the god is one.

-

The above is an argument expressing a viewpoint. I don't agree with it myself, since I don't believe the question is truth apt. But, if we stipulated that the question was truth apt, then I think the above argument would be stronger than the one you made.

 

[Wiploc]

Batman is still batman, even if you make big changes to him. Again; two different interpretations of batman (or god) may not be "identical", but they *are* the same character.

Interesting comparison. For a long time, I too have drawn an analogy between deities and the stars of long-running superhero franchises, but I've always had the opposite view to yours-- Christian Bale's Batman is not the same character as Adam West's Batman. For that matter, Grant Morrison's Batman is not the same character as Scott Snyder's Batman.

The current Pope's Jehovah is not the same as Fred Phelps' Jehovah is not the same as Henry the Eighth's Jehovah is not the same as Torquemada's Jehovah. None of that would prove, if Jehovah actually existed, that they weren't all the same person, described however inaccurately.

 

[fromderinside]

Here we are, folks, at the tea and debating society about whither and whether Ghawd. Nice place. Godly flora and fauna don't have to make sense since we're talking about Ghawd, Jahweh, Jehovah, Allah, Him, God, the One, Ra, whatever. If you see an all powerful flag with a cross on it or a crescent or a fish or a potato head they are all the same thing apparently because they all represent a one god view..... until you parse. Then out come tokens, icons, saints, prophets, and other preachy shit. As for one view there isn't since humans are not telepathic or submissively empathetic thus can't share things completely or, for that matter, even partially. Every image is different and every image of the same thing is different every time it is in conscientiousness.

Having dispelled, in my mind, the arguments seen at this tea and debating society, I conclude the society no longer has any secular utility.

Sine Die.

 

[DBT]

Your analogy misses the point, the erroneous version of Callisto is not the actual Callisto. The Jovian moon Callisto actually exists, but as the erroneous version does not relate to the actual version, the erroneous version of Callisto is not the actual Callisto. If one set of scientists believe that Callisto has a tropical climate with oceans and tourist resorts (to exaggerate the point), it is obviously a different Callisto to the one that scientists believe has a heavily cratered surface and thin atmosphere. There are two versions of Callisto, If one version is true, the other must be false. They cannot both be true.

Of course the representations can not both be true. But they're still representations of the same object, one of them erroneous but with the same referent. Otherwise you'd have to conclude that someone claiming there are palm beaches on Callisto cannot be said to be wrong because he is referring to a different Callisto for which this holds (fictional or otherwise).

The distinction being: they use the same object or name or concept as a focal point. The moon actually exists, but the moon as an alien artifact parked into Earth orbit is not the actual Moon, is it? So if the mental/belief construct of the Moon as an Alien Artifact does not relate to the actual Moon, it is not the same Moon as the actual Moon. They have merely formed a mental/belief construct that conforms to their own particular set of proclivities. Oh, sure, they point to the actual Moon, there it is, it exists, sure it does.... but then diverge into their own set of beliefs about the nature and makeup of the Moon.

Just as each and every theist has their own set of proclivities related to the focal point of 'God' - whether an actual God exists or not is irrelevant to mental constructs that are formed in response to the word and the concept of 'God' Something that has not even been shown, unlike Callisto or the Moon, to exist.

 

[DBT]

You are absolutely right: the two versions (of the one Abrahamic god?) are not compatible. They cannot both be true. One version could be true and the other false, or they could both be false. That doesn't necessarily make them two different gods.

If we are talking about a literal object with literal attributes and features, it can no more be the same God than an object can be both a sphere and a cube at the same instance in time.

A God sitting of a Throne in the form of Father, Son and the Holy Ghost, this is entirely different God to that of the God of Islam where the Son relegated to the status of a prophet. Both can't be true, either one is true and the other is false, or both claims are false. The God of Islam is not the God of Christianity, the former is not a Trinity, the latter is.

It may be argued that a God exists but all parties happen to have the attributes of God wrong. Making their own versions a case of mistaken identity. All they had right is the label.

 

[Wiploc]

You are absolutely right: the two versions (of the one Abrahamic god?) are not compatible. They cannot both be true. One version could be true and the other false, or they could both be false. That doesn't necessarily make them two different gods.

If we are talking about a literal object with literal attributes and features, it can no more be the same God than an object can be both a sphere and a cube at the same instance in time.

So, we look at the object, and put it in a box. Then we argue about whether the object is a sphere or a cube. You're probably wrong, but, regardless of which of us is wrong, there's only one object under consideration. The fact that one of us misconstrues the object's shape does not create a second in the box.

A God sitting of a Throne in the form of Father, Son and the Holy Ghost, this is entirely different God to that of the God of Islam where the Son relegated to the status of a prophet. Both can't be true, either one is true and the other is false, or both claims are false. The God of Islam is not the God of Christianity, the former is not a Trinity, the latter is.

Or, we can look at it the other way. We can say that Islam and Christianity agree that there is one true god, the one and only creator of the universe. They discuss that particular god, and disagree on whether it is a trinity. You're right that this god can't be both a trinity and not a trinity, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are talking about two different gods. They could be talking about a single god, with one side being wrong about the trinity stuff.

That makes just as much sense as what you're saying. It is just as good an argument as the one you're making.

It may be argued that a God exists but all parties happen to have the attributes of God wrong. Making their own versions a case of mistaken identity. All they had right is the label.

It can also be argued that Jehovah/Allah exists, and one team has the trinitarian aspect wrong.

My own position is that, since gods don't exist, the question of whether Jehovah and Allah are one person is not truth apt. In which case, you are wrong to insist it is true that they are separate gods. Your position is as wrong as the position you are arguing against.

The only way you could be right is if Jehovah and Allah both---and separately---existed. Then they would objectively two different people.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

You are absolutely right: the two versions (of the one Abrahamic god?) are not compatible. They cannot both be true. One version could be true and the other false, or they could both be false. That doesn't necessarily make them two different gods.

If we are talking about a literal object with literal attributes and features, it can no more be the same God than an object can be both a sphere and a cube at the same instance in time.

A God sitting of a Throne in the form of Father, Son and the Holy Ghost, this is entirely different God to that of the God of Islam where the Son relegated to the status of a prophet. Both can't be true, either one is true and the other is false, or both claims are false. The God of Islam is not the God of Christianity, the former is not a Trinity, the latter is.

It may be argued that a God exists but all parties happen to have the attributes of God wrong. Making their own versions a case of mistaken identity. All they had right is the label.

The Christian God is derived from the Canaanite god El with his seventy sons and his wife Ashera. The Islamic God is derived from an Arabian god with three daughters. Just 1 of 360 idols found at Mecca. Not the same God, all started out as primitive myths. Who needs any of these goofy god critters?