God Exists, Relatively Speaking
God, the OOO God (omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent), does He exist? An open question to some, complete nonsense to others, an undeniable fact to the other third.
I mean to draw a distinction that of the absolute and the relative.
By the former I mean, as herein relevant, a God that's the big honcho, the capo di tutti i capi, the master of all, anything beyond an absolute God is inconceivable.
By the latter, a relative God, I refer to (a) being(s) that are best among a group to which s/he/they belong to. On this view, God(s) do exist for surely there is one among the 7 billion of us who is the most moral (relative omnibenvolence), another who is most knowledgeable (relative omniscience), still another who is most powerful (relative omnipotence). These 3 special people (triumvirate) then together become for the rest of us, our relative God.
The absolute God may/may not exist!
The relative God exists alright!
We just need to get the trio together to form the 3-person team we can justifiably call/label God, relative God to be precise.
I mean to draw a distinction that of the absolute and the relative.
By the former I mean, as herein relevant, a God that's the big honcho, the capo di tutti i capi, the master of all, anything beyond an absolute God is inconceivable.
By the latter, a relative God, I refer to (a) being(s) that are best among a group to which s/he/they belong to. On this view, God(s) do exist for surely there is one among the 7 billion of us who is the most moral (relative omnibenvolence), another who is most knowledgeable (relative omniscience), still another who is most powerful (relative omnipotence). These 3 special people (triumvirate) then together become for the rest of us, our relative God.
The absolute God may/may not exist!
The relative God exists alright!
We just need to get the trio together to form the 3-person team we can justifiably call/label God, relative God to be precise.
Comments (29)
Should we worship them? And when we are visited by advanced ET?
A good question. Makes us rethink what worship actually is and what purpose it serves? Clearly, since there's a difference between an absolute God and a relative God, worship may need to be recalibrated accordingly, from fanatical devotion to a more measured form of respect.
Extraterrestrials, provided they're relatively good, powerful, and knowledgeable, would need to be treated as relative gods. The same goes for them too.
Ooo my God!
What is the Great Filter? Is God a filter?
Quoting Agent Smith
The Queen of England is treated as a demigod - riches, rituals, songs, and even the final say on whether bills become law. Surely advanced humans or ET could be worshiped in at least the same way.
What is worship?
Quoting Agent Smith
To honour or show reverence for (usually god/s).
Support for the Queen is consistently above 80%. Much more than the percentage of us Brits that believe in let alone worship god/s.
The statistics are intriguing.
I don't think God/gods should be worshipped. They should be treated with respect though.
I can't see much difference between OOOGod and Ooogod. Except between OOG and oog. What's the difference between OG and og?
Quoting Agent Smith
A lot of the worshipping for both god/s and the Queen is tradition.
An all-powerful god would know how much we love them without the need for worship, and an all-loving god would love us either way.
[quote=Sherlock Holmes]Sit down my dear fellow and describe these peculiar circumstances.[/quote]
"Chalk powder in his hair... an encounter in a classroom... red stains on shoes... forgot to close the strawberry jam jar... mint odor... brushed teeth... false mustache... trails of omnipotence... small indication of omnipresence... seems a nice guy... must be triplex o..."
This is just a naked/textbook argument from ignorance. From the fact that we do not presently have a non-theistic explanation for some X, it does not follow that it therefore has a theistic explanation.
And in any case, God is not any sort of an explanation anyways: explanations account for unknowns in terms of knowns, they do not merely substitute one unknown for another unknown.
Well, it depends on how deep the explanation goes. If there is nothing left to explain, then the last question is: where did the reality I describe come from. What else than gods can be the answer? How can such ingenious structure exist by itself?
The point is, from the fact that we currently lack an answer, it doesn't follow that there is no such answer. For the theistic explanation to follow, the very possibility of a non-theistic alternative must be ruled out (not merely presently lacking).
But what if you have found a self consistent, coherent irreducible answer? Where does the stuff you think you have an answer about come from? It can't be it's own answer.
:clap: :up: That was well worded and packed with meanging!
One of the posters, a while ago, remarked that the "worship of God", if you really think about it, "is the worship of ignorance"; not a new idea (god of the gaps), but still a particular turn of phrase manages to clarify a position in a much better way than a scholarly essay.
The best among us is but human, although I would agree that Tom Brady is a God.
To equate the far end of a normal curve to a celestial being is beyond philosophy IMHO and a fantasy.
Quoting Cornwell1
Ours is not to wonder why, ours is but to do and die.
Have you come across this statement: A theory that explains everything explains nothing! I can't find the person who said it, sorry.
Do you have any idea why?
Relative god, not an absolute God. I have made adjustments to the status of a relative god - brought Him down a notch or two - and that, in my humble opinion, should satisfy all parties involved.
I think your argument can be laid out like so.
1. If the most powerful person, the most knowledgeable person, the most moral person exist, and they can form a triumvirate, then a relative God exists.
2. The most powerful person, the most knowledgeable person, and the most moral person exist, and they can form a triumvirate.
3. Therefore, a relative God exists. (MP 1,2)
While this is a valid argument, I do not think it is sound. Premise 1 especially seems objectionable. God's intentions and actions are good, and therefore a relative God's intentions and actions must also aim at goodness. Just because a triumvirate includes the most moral person in the world does not mean the actions and intentions of the triumvirate will be moral. The difference is that God's qualities- omnibenevolence, omniscience, omnipotence- are cohesive. What I mean is that they are always in agreement with one another, and therefore the intentions and actions of God are always good. The specific two qualities that must agree are morality and power. If they disagree, then the triumvirate will still act evilly. Take the following example. Say, Albert Einstein, Mother Teressa, and Hitler all existed simultaneously. Let's say they were respectively the most knowledgeable, moral, and powerful people in the world. If the three created a triumvirate, they would be considered the relative God. However, Mother Teressa and Hitler are likely not in agreement on actions to take. Because Hitler is the most powerful person in the world, he has the power to override Mother Teressa's desires. As a result, Hitler will act in an immoral way. These actions go wildly against the nature of God, making the triumvirate far from a relative God.
I think an adjustment could be made to the argument, specifically to premise one. You could either change it to:
1. If the most powerful moral person, the most knowledgeable person, the most moral person exist, and they can form a triumvirate, then a relative God exists.
Or,
2. If the most powerful person, the most knowledgeable person, the most moral person exist, and the moral and powerful person agree and they can form a triumvirate, then a relative God exists.
These adjustments to your argument ensure that the powerful person will aim to act morally, meaning the triumvirate can aim at good just as God does.