If holy books are true then all gods are real.
If a person thinks their holy book is the only valid holy book then they are guilty of the logical fallacy of special pleading as there is no evidence that one holy book is better than another.
If holy books are not true then no gods are real.
So which is it?
Are all holy books true?
Is one holy book true (take your random pick of which one).
Or are no holy books true?
The answer is blindingly obvious.
Well... The TL;DR answer is, "It depends."
"True" in this sense is a matter of degrees rather than a logical statement, and so we tend to use words like "factual" or "non-fiction."
The reason for that, I imagine, is that it speaks more to the work's intent, context and content than a binary true/false check. A non-fiction book may contain falsehoods, though not lies. Even its premises may be false, or may eventually be shown to be so. Or they can be true or eventually shown to be true. That does not make the book itself true or false, however. It may make it more or less factually accurate, as viewed through the lens of your standing model of reality.
Are all holy books factual? No. Do some holy books have factual elements? Yes. Are those elements true? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Ask an historian.
As alluded to above, I do understand that you could use "true" in a broader sense, but in this case, you seem to be using it in conjunction with if-then statements, which indirectly assumes using it as a logical test. (Your conclusion of which is flawed, by the way, but I see what you were trying to do, so I'm happy to leave it be)
So,
Are all factual statements in all holy books accurate? (On a passed check, this is the closest you come to "All holy books are true")
Are all factual statements in some holy books accurate?
Are some factual statements in all holy books accurate?
Are some factual statements in some holy books accurate?
Are no factual statements in all holy books accurate?
Are no factual statements in some holy books accurate?
There is another option for each with no holy books, but I omitted that one as the inevitable else case.
You see, there is quite a lot more to this than the simple test you propose, and that reality will not be lost on the more sophisticated believer. As for those who wouldn't even care to consider such possibilities - you are unlikely to convince them, if for no other reason, because they are unlikely to listen and/or understand and/or give a toss. :smilenod:
Still, The Asmo approves of mental exercises, so if no-one else, He, at least, is happy to come play. :)
Quote from: Tank on July 30, 2024, 08:23:02 AM. . . as there is no evidence that one holy book is better than another.
^^^thats a universal negative categorical proposition.
to assert that it results in a true conclusion in a sound argument it must first be demonstrated to be true.
how would one do that?
Quote from: billy rubin on July 30, 2024, 12:46:54 PMQuote from: Tank on July 30, 2024, 08:23:02 AM. . . as there is no evidence that one holy book is better than another.
^^^thats a universal negative categorical proposition.
to assert that it results in a true conclusion in a sound argument it must first be demonstrated to be true.
how would one do that?
Good question. How would you do it? :)
By first figuring out what it is specifically you are testing, then... Testing it?
Is there evidence that some holy books are more eloquently written than others?
Is there evidence that some holy books are more historically accurate than others?
Is there evidence that some holy books are more broadly factually accurate than others?
Is there evidence that some holy books are more popular than others?
Is there evidence that some holy books are more interesting than others?
Any combination of the above and a lot more besides may constitute "better." Any of the above is testable.
Quote from: Tank on July 30, 2024, 08:23:02 AMAre all holy books true?
Is one holy book true (take your random pick of which one).
Or are no holy books true?
The Book of Zorka is without doubt true IMO.
You see, it's a matter of opinion.
But can you afford to doubt it?
Ref. Chapter 4 - Last Days.
"At the end of time the earth will be set ablaze.
Only Zorkans will escape to another world.
For the rest it will be nothing but wailing and gnashing of teeth."
;D
The Gray Tome is fare more factually accurate though.
The Asmo giveth and The Asmo taketh awayeth. Mostly taketh awayeth, but sometimes giveth, though there is little evidenceth of him givething. Never you mindeth that. And lo, when The Asmo taketh awayeth for the final timeth, then there will be nothing lefteth. As His Divine Will dwindleth, so shall the Universe dieth for evereth and evereth.
:smilenod:
the way to do it is to test their histories, their predictions, and tbe reality of their doctrines, and then compare.
i think they all generally fail at history, and i have found prophecy is usually arguable.
so the reality is where the most straightforward test would be.
the simplest way to test it is to meet the gods, in an unambiguous manner. i dont know anybody who has, although i have heard some very convincing testimonies.
Coming at the same challenge from a slightly different angle, which holy book has produced the least harm? :lol:
Not really relevant but that would be the "better" volume in my opinion. Doesn't make the book "better" from the perspective of validating its assertions regarding deities though.
As far as I am aware none of the pertinent* assertions regarding deities have been unequivocally validated in any holy book. Some may attempt arguing a case claiming validation. However, argument/apologia never escape equivocation; it's in the nature of the endeavor. Inevitably there will be special pleading.
*To the question of existence of a deity or deities.
Where true = showing that a deity or deities exist then I agree with your conclusion Tank.
It really is the case that no deistic/theistic claim has not been substantiated.
Quote from: Asmodean on July 30, 2024, 02:53:53 PMThe Gray Tome is fare more factually accurate though.
The Asmo giveth and The Asmo taketh awayeth. Mostly taketh awayeth, but sometimes giveth, though there is little evidenceth of him givething. Never you mindeth that. And lo, when The Asmo taketh awayeth for the final timeth, then there will be nothing lefteth. As His Divine Will dwindleth, so shall the Universe dieth for evereth and evereth.
:smilenod:
Which version are you quoting from.
The new or the revised?
Quote from: Recusant on July 31, 2024, 04:37:18 AMComing at the same challenge from a slightly different angle, which holy book has produced the least harm?
The Book of Zorka has never done any harm in this world, despite Zorkanism being the galactic religion.
Them aliens up there in our airspace are missionaries trying their best to promote it, but we don't listen because we have evolved our own gods.
Quote from: zorkan on July 31, 2024, 12:45:12 PMWhich version are you quoting from.
The new or the revised?
There is only one The Asmo, who is The Asmoest among all The Asmos, and His is the only True Gray Tome. :smilenod:
Quote from: Tank on July 31, 2024, 09:35:24 AMIt really is the case that no deistic/theistic claim has not been substantiated.
They tend to fall flat at the "because God" stage. Often, even before that. That is not to say, however, that none of their claims
may hold their liquids.
Question: If one were to say that their God is the total of nature, does his/her god exist. :)
Sure, by much the same token as you could say that your matchbox is that there carton of cigarettes. You may even store matches in it, so it could be true enough for adequacy.
If you were to say something like God is the collective consciousness or the intent of all of nature... That would raise questions because then, rather than redefining what a thing is called, you are assigning that thing, whatever it's called, specific properties which it may or may not have.
So then, a true God does exist for that person, and that person must conclude that his/her god is true for all others as all others are under the same powers. Can the existence of that persons god be disputed. :)
Of course. I could call out your matchbox from above for being nothing but a cigarette carton, even if it may be a box and you may store matches in it.
Quote from: Asmodean on August 01, 2024, 06:53:23 AMOf course. I could call out your matchbox from above for being nothing but a cigarette carton, even if it may be a box and you may store matches in it.
Nature has no match boxes from above, The God term needn't imply religion or theism, but can imply the powers that one is subject to. I'm posting in good faith but can see where this is going. I will leave it here. :)
Oh, I have no reason to suspect that your argument is in anything but good faith nor that it is about anything but good faith. (Word play intended) and I answer it as such :smilenod:
I think we are touching upon the reason why I insist on a workable, agreed-upon definition. My matchbox example from above is good for the purpose, but if you look for something within nature, we can easily do that too. It's not even about repurposing - it's simply a matter of whether you are calling something (or a constellation of things) that exists the umbrella term "God," or if your god is "reality plus." There is usually a more descriptive word for the former. there is usually too much wishful thinking in the latter.
So, what constitutes a god? If it's "merely" the framework within which reality operates, then sure, such a thing exists as described. Heck, perhaps even multiple things fit that particular description of god.
If god is the universe, then that god exists as the universe does. If god is the overarching intent of the Universe, however, then you would have to demonstrate - or at the very least necessitate - the Universe having overarching intent.
So, let us say that your god is all-knowing, at least within the universe we inhabit. that would mean that said god is at a minimum a 1:1 model of this universe. Such a god raises far more questions than it answers and does nothing to complete a functional model of reality besides. It is... Unnecessary.
If your god is ever-present [same constraints as above not to spiral wahahay into the obscure, though we can, if you would like. It's been a bit and a half since I got to compare infinities ;) ], then at the very minimum, your god is this Universe, which you are a subsystem of. Why not just call it the Universe at that point?
If your god has a beard, can create mountains, can ignite stars and turn women into salt, etc, etc.
In order to properly argue for or against the existence of god, we would first have to agree what specific thing or concept we are talking about. What separates your god from any non-god? What is it that makes your matchbox a match box, so to say.
The moral of the story, to put it maybe-too-plainly-for-my-liking, is; there are more or less as many understandings of gods as there are believers. That does not mean that any of those gods exist as described - nor does it mean that all those gods are gods to anyone else's understanding. I think this answers both your question of whether a true god could (not must exist as that person understands it, but that it would not necessarily be "beyond mundane" to anyone else. (Your Ra is my ball of gravitationally bound hydrogen, fusing away into helium the darkness of space)
To word it more to my liking, if a believer can be reliably convinced that their true god is below their threshhold for what separates a god from a non-god, then... I suppose that's what happens when a mommy Atheist and a daddy Atheist read books about bees and flowers under a stork migration route. conversely, if I can be reliably convinced that, say, Jesus, is at or above my threshhold for what makes a god... Who says a The Asmo can't be saved? Well, technically The Asmo does, but do let us nevermind. The point is valid, if yet-to-be-achieved since Jesus has a LOT of threshholds to cross way before we even get to the whole divinity mess.
[RE-EDIT]: I do go on and on and on, but I suppose I opened a door that it would be discourteous of me not to walk through;
Here is my threshhold for a [general] god: a conscious, unitary, sapient system [being, if you prefer], possessing the capability of, through the use of itself, acting in an intentional and unrestricted (which also implies creation "from nothing" of previously-absent systems) way upon any system within its domain. (The very tail end is because I would be perfectly fine with a god, whose power was thusly limited within the domain of another god, still being a god)
Quote from: Asmodean on July 31, 2024, 02:32:21 PMQuote from: zorkan on July 31, 2024, 12:45:12 PMWhich version are you quoting from.
The new or the revised?
There is only one The Asmo, who is The Asmoest among all The Asmos, and His is the only True Gray Tome. :smilenod:
There are Asmos who disagree but none who'd condescend to argue.
(https://i.imgur.com/EbLV21B.jpeg)
All The Asmos love ratties. The Only True The Asmos, however, don't eat them. That's a fake the Asmo, right there. Blasphemous! >:( It shall be judged for its fluffy wickedness! >:(
Also, where are its Divine Eyebrows?! It is known that The Asmos possess Divine Eyebrows, and that thing's are... A sad excuse for divinity! :rant1:
THE Asmo does not deign to reply to your most recent un Asmo like display of pique.
(https://i.imgur.com/EbLV21B.jpeg)
Quote from: Old Seer on July 31, 2024, 02:48:18 PMQuestion: If one were to say that their God is the total of nature, does his/her god exist. :)
No. They just belong in a padded cell :D
As with any belief one would assume that there are OK pantheists and pantheists that are not so OK. ;)
Quote from: Tank on August 01, 2024, 06:40:51 PMQuote from: Old Seer on July 31, 2024, 02:48:18 PMQuestion: If one were to say that their God is the total of nature, does his/her god exist. :)
No. They just belong in a padded cell :D
Profile photo for Apoorv Gautam
Apoorv Gautam
Analyst (2022–present)Author has 227 answers and 544.8K answer views8mo
There is not a standard definition of GOD, the term has a different meaning at various places, but the core aim is same at every place i.e to bring everyone under same umbrella. And that's why the term has been created for.
GOD is simply a respectful title that can be assigned to an entity (whether living or non living) if it has a positive influence over the audience, and turns the people towards a positive direction.
The common reason why there is a need of god in every religion, is to change perception of people and make them believe and follow the ideas, which is otherwise very difficult to achieve.
For someone, who has been thirsty for days and if you provide him a bottle of water. For them, even you will be considered a god or someone sent by god to save you.
And that's what had been happening out throughout the history of mankind, many religions originated only due to fact that they gave a different meaning to God.
For some religions, God is one who encourages love and kindness towards the others.
For some religions, God is commander of unity and his order is final and non negotiable.
For some religions, everything beneficial to mankind (whether living or non living) is a God.
For some religions, God is provider of strength and every outcome is based on his decision.
The reason why there have been a different meaning of god, at different places is simply to solve the major problems of society that arises due to conflict of beliefs among people.
At some place it was more important to spread love and kindness among the people, so God had to be responsible for it.
At some place it was more important to unite people and follow same ideas rather then delving into conflicting beliefs, so God had to be responsible for it.
At some place it was important to make people realize the importance of elements around them, so that people preserve them and make best out of them, so they were assigned as status of God.
At some place, it was important for people to unite people and provoke them to take decisions without thinking about consequences by considering them as will of God.
In my point of view, The various gods at different places is
One wise voice, that observes everyone and then guides/suggests them to a path, that would provide them a clear path to righteousness.
The voice speaks something at one place and something other at another place, it is not different, neither it is biased towards anyone.
It is just a wise and correct suggestion given accordingly.
Thus there should be no debate on whose voice is it. It could be voice of anyone, it may also be depiction of anyone, or an outcome of something that gives a positive idea and provides a clearer path. Anything can be a GOD.
Concept of God is smart initiative taken up by some wise humans in the history, to explain the right path to a larger audience whenever required.
214 viewsView upvotes
Quote from: The Magic Pudding.. on August 01, 2024, 03:04:38 PMTHE Asmo does not deign to reply to your most recent un Asmo like display of pique.
See! That exposeth the fraudeth! For it is known that only a True The Asmo replieth and only the Truest of all True Asmos ranteth when He doth. :rant1: