What is the truth value of this statement?

[dms1972]

'I am not a god.'

I'd say I the value of it is true, rather than false. It is a true statement, it speaks of an actual state of affairs, and ontologically it is true.

 

[Eudaimonist]

'I am not a god.'

If someone asks you if you're a god, you say yes!

I'd say I the value of it is true, rather than false. It is a true statement, it speaks of an actual state of affairs, and ontologically it is true.

Given a straightforward definition of god, that is a true statement.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[essentialsaltes]

Looks true to me. Are you expecting resistance on this point? You are not a centaur, either.

 

[GrimKingGrim]

We are gods. We play god everyday to a world below us; the insects. We literally do everything in those mythological tales to them. And yet they still don't worship us. Poor ignorant fools.

(If you're wondering where the reference came from)

 

[TheoNewstoss]

'I am not a god.'

I'd say I the value of it is true, rather than false. It is a true statement, it speaks of an actual state of affairs, and ontologically it is true.

If you're defining "God" in the classical Christian sense, that is, that which no greater being can be conceived, then you are definitely not God and the statement is true.

 

[grasping the after wind]

'I am not a god.'

I'd say I the value of it is true, rather than false. It is a true statement, it speaks of an actual state of affairs, and ontologically it is true.

You need to define the term "god" or I might misunderstand what you mean by that term and we will be speaking about two very different things. We may or may not come to the same conclusion about whether you are a god or not but we will not really be agreeing we will just be parties to a coincidence.

 

[juvenissun]

'I am not a god.'

I'd say I the value of it is true, rather than false. It is a true statement, it speaks of an actual state of affairs, and ontologically it is true.

Hitler might think it is false.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Hitler might think it is false.

So? Would he be right? Would that statement correspond to "an actual state of affairs"?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[juvenissun]

So? Would he be right? Would that statement correspond to "an actual state of affairs"?

eudaimonia,

Mark

That is why I usually said that everyone is a god in Humanism.

 

[Eudaimonist]

That is why I usually said that everyone is a god in Humanism.

Does the statement "Adolf Hitler is a god" describe an actual state of affairs? No, it doesn't, so it is ontologically false.

And Hitler never claimed to be a god. I don't recall him ever claiming to be a Humanist either, or showing any sympathies towards Humanist ideas.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[dms1972]

If you're defining "God" in the classical Christian sense...

I was just using it more generally. Thinking that not being a 'god' means not being one in any sense.

 

[juvenissun]

Does the statement "Adolf Hitler is a god" describe an actual state of affairs? No, it doesn't, so it is ontologically false.

And Hitler never claimed to be a god. I don't recall him ever claiming to be a Humanist either, or showing any sympathies towards Humanist ideas.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Was he what he claimed he was?
If not, what was he?

 

[whois]

'I am not a god.'

I'd say I the value of it is true, rather than false.

why would you come to that conclusion?
do you find it audacious to proclaim yourself as a god?
what if all the religions of the world are nothing more than satanic ploys to keep us from realizing our true heritage?
the placebo effect, the ability of the mind to cure the body by faith/ belief, certainly supports that contention.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Was he what he claimed he was?

He was the Führer. That word means "leader", and in practice meant a dictator.

Adolf Hitler also had such pretentious titles as "Greatest Military Commander of All Time" and "Military Leader of Europe". He was glorified as a soldier and a military commander, and as leader of the Germanic people.

Yes, he was a military leader and a dictator, just as he claimed to be. He was a megalomaniac, and certainly some of his vision of himself was false, but he never did claim to be anything other than a human being.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[juvenissun]

He was the Führer. That word means "leader", and in practice meant a dictator.

Adolf Hitler also had such pretentious titles as "Greatest Military Commander of All Time" and "Military Leader of Europe". He was glorified as a soldier and a military commander, and as leader of the Germanic people.

Yes, he was a military leader and a dictator, just as he claimed to be. He was a megalomaniac, and certainly some of his vision of himself was false, but he never did claim to be anything other than a human being.

eudaimonia,

Mark

So he is justified to be called a Humanist.

 

[Eudaimonist]

So he is justified to be called a Humanist.

eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[GrowingSmaller]

In Buddhism there are desire realm Gods, just above the human realm. We are in "kama loka" the pleasure or desire realm.You will have heard of the kama sutra.


Logically or mathematically speaking there is an arbitrarilly large (infinite) set of religions in which we may be called "gods".


Extant in the present world is - I think - tantric buddhism,where the conventional sense of sef is dissolved into nothingness, and replaced with a yidam or tantric deity like vajradhara.

Of course that -the potentially limitless number i just mentioned, (e.g. just keep on adding extra pairs of arms to your yidam image and keep on going... ad infinitum) - that set and its ramifications depends on the metaphysics you have adopted in your faith, and I suppose its consistency with observable data.

For further noodling refer to modal realism (there are infinitely existing possible worlds) and epistemic modal logic (I think, in this context, what we can and cannot know about them). And the concepts of defeasibility and indefeasibility ( I htink, this is whethera claim can be defeated by adduing further evidence).

So the possivle worlds in which I can be called a "god" etc, are infinite, even though in this one I may be interviewed by a clinical psychologist should I publicly make the claim. LIkewise, there is an infinite set of possibilities consistent with data, in which I am mistaken if I make the claim. "Touche!"

Defeasible reasoning is a kind of reasoning that is based on reasons that are defeasible, as opposed to the indefeasible reasons of deductive logic. Defeasible reasoning is a particular kind of non-demonstrative reasoning, where the reasoning does not produce a full, complete, or final demonstration of a claim, i.e., where fallibility and corrigibility of a conclusion are acknowledged.

.

Modal realism is the view propounded by David Kellogg Lewis that all possible worlds are as real as the actual world. It is based on the following tenets: possible worlds exist; possible worlds are not different in kind from the actual world; possible worlds are irreducible entities; the term actual in actual world is indexical, i.e. any subject can declare their world to be the actual one, much as they label the place they are "here" and the time they are "now".

Most attempts at modeling knowledge have been based on the possible worlds model. In order to do this, we must divide the set of possible worlds between those that are compatible with an agent's knowledge, and those that are not.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

So? Would he be right? Would that statement correspond to "an actual state of affairs"?


eudaimonia,

Mark

And is the "verification principle" a self refuting statement?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-refuting_idea

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verification_principle

Technically I am correct I think,practically, well theres not much point other than making the point itself...

 

[dms1972]

We are gods. We play god everyday to a world below us; the insects. We literally do everything in those mythological tales to them.

Who is "we" ? Who feels like a god when they see an ant?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

"God" is a taboo term, like "master mason".