From the much feared JSS library of definitions;
A god ≡ who/whatever incontestably determines what can or cannot be concerning a situation.
The God ≡ Who/Whatever incontestably determines All that can or cannot be.
And those are the only definitions I use except when quoting someone else (a rarity).
…and “demonstrations” can rarely be given to the blind of mind.
See what I mean? What does any of this mean once the definitions are taken down off the sky hooks?
Let him give us “a situation” relating to actual human interaction in which the definition – or the existence – of God might be deemed relevant.
In other words, how far will these definitions of his take us other than into a debate over which definition is most likely to make you the least “blind of mind”?
Technically speaking James didn’t like the word “god” instead of God, even though of course “god” means not what is usually meant by “god” and hence could of meant God according to which person you were speaking to and his or her personal Jesus. I think both James and the other dude should be flung into the sun but there you go.
In other words the whole thing was silly and no one cares except obviously those involved. Amen.
Take the definitions away from what you say, and everything means nothing.
If you were to treat a specific person in a specific way (“the situation”), wouldn’t you expect a specific reaction?
Why would that be?
Because “what is, is what is” (Moses’ definition for “God” also known as “A is A” from Aristotle)
And what will be stems from what is, “God creates the entire world”, “Expect only what the real situation (“what is”) would bring from how you treat it.”
Isn’t that enough?
Once you lose that “blind of mind” issue, the rest is as easy as reading a map.
… well for those who can read a map.
But what about the things we say in which conflicting definitions precipitate conflicting behaviors? That’s not nothing. In fact, that’s the rule regarding lots and lots of human behaviors.
For example, what about two folks who both claim their definition of morality [the meaning of morality] is the correct one but who can’t demonstrate how, in using that definition, we can determine which of two conflicting value judgments is the most rational? John may claim that homosexuality is immoral because it says so in the Bible. How does that relate to your own definition of “a God” and “THE God”?
Again, to me this is just more words going around and around in circles— defining and defending other words. What does it have to do with determining the relationship between conflicting value judgments regarding homosexuality and THE God?
To my way of thinking, it would be like saying A [homosexuality] = A [immorality]. Why? Because that is simply what it IS? Why? Because we derive this from our definition of THE God.
Otherwise I can only assume that I am not [yet] able to understand your own reasoning. And I’m certainly willing to acknowledge this.
A map will tell me how to get from point A to point B. But if I want to get to point C instead, it won’t tell me why I shouldn’t go there. And if point C means going to Las Vegas to gamble, it certainly won’t tell me why a trip to in Las Vegas in order to gamble is immoral.
Would your definition of THE God tell you?
Yes. I’ll go out on a limb and say also that this God is what provides or guarantees certain powerful and vital organizations of your own powers of perception, emotion and understanding of events and people. God is a basis on which certain, perhaps we shall call them “subjective transformations” are possible.
This fact works toward demonstrating God. But alone it seems not sufficient to a critical-rational mind, other powers and demonstrations would also be required.
Moving toward this possibility: once the typical atheist/sceptic/nihilist pathological constructions are removed from the mind/feeling a space opens up wherein God and gods, by your definition, become possible. It would seem reasonable to conclude that positions with positive lack of God maintain themselves through mechanisms of self-closure and self-harm, masochisms of fear and constant (self-inflicted) pain.
So bro James, this God is impersonal?