Is an assertion about the nature of Moby Dick equivalent to an assertion about the

[Warren Stupidity]

nature of God?

I claim that the former is rational and the latter irrational.

[Angry Dragon]

1. both are as real as the other

[Warren Stupidity]

3. well perhaps, but are they both rational?

For example:

"Moby Dick is a great white whale." vs "Moby Dick is a giant anthropomorphic rabbit."

and

"God hates homosexuals." vs "God loves all of us."

The assertions about Moby Dick cannot both be true, and it may be possible to rationally decide which is true by examining the book "Moby Dick".

The assertions about God cannot both be true, but it is not possible to rationally decide which is true.

[Festivito]

2. I'll try no, and yes, assertions about God being irrational.

In the way that irrational numbers are infinitely not rational. God being infinite.

Therefore the rational assertions cannot be equivalent to the irrational assertions.

However, that does not imply all assertions about God are irrational.

[pscot]

4. If you treat the bible as a work of fiction

they would be identical. Similarly if you think Moby Dick is the ultimate expression of eternal verities. I could go either way.

[Warren Stupidity]

5. well no, you would have to agree that "the bible" is the definitive work.

But certainly closer. But that avoids the issue. The bible is just one of many descriptions of the qualities of an alleged deity.

[cbayer]

6. Is the assertion about Moby Dick you refer to that he is an anthropomorphized

evil force that actually speaks more to the character of the captain than the whale?

Or something else?

[Warren Stupidity]

7. it is an assertion about a fictional character in a real book.

are assertions about god also about a fictional character in a real book?

are assertions about a metaphysical entity described in real books equivalent to assertions about fictional characters in real books?

[cbayer]

8. No. Your question really makes little sense.

[Warren Stupidity]

10. why is that?

It seems quite simple to me. If I assert "Moby Dick is a giant rabbit" you and I can agree that the character Moby Dick in the book Moby Dick is not a giant rabbit, it is a giant whale. For those qualities of Moby Dick that are unambiguously described in the text, we can make statements about Moby Dick that can be rationally evaluated.

If I, as some religious people have asserted, assert that "God hates all homosexuals", you and I can neither validate nor refute that assertion, nor its contradiction, that "God loves everyone". We have no rational basis for knowing anything about this "god", nor do the accumulation of texts that claim such knowledge. Each of us can attribute anything we want to our deities and nobody else can rationally refute those claims. We can even make absurd claims that God loves everyone and hates all homosexuals.

[tama]

9. Imaginary friends

What is important about them is that we learn real things from them:

Matt Smith:
So if you found that children with imaginary friends have better developed language skills or…

Dr Evan Kidd:
Yeah, we found something a little bit more subtler than that. So what we found is that kids who have imaginary companions are really good in conversation with adults. So what they do, what they’re able to do, is understand the information that when they’re talking to an adult, that the adult needs to know. And they provide that information in an efficient manner.

http://www.latrobe.edu.au/news/articles/2009/podcasts/imaginary-friends-with-evan-kidd/transcript

[Warren Stupidity]

11. sure, there are plenty of rational things to be said about people who believe in god.

god, on the other hand, not so much.

[tama]

15. ? nt

[rug]

12. No.

You are free to attempt to prove your claim.

[Warren Stupidity]

13. Thanks.

[pinto]

14. Perhaps the larger take is that both are perceptions of the observers not the observed.

And equivalent in that sense.

(aside) I'm unclear on how you are using rational / irrational as qualifiers here.

[Fumesucker]

16. Killer drum solo but those seem to have gone out of fashion about forty years ago

[okasha]

17. It's possible to make rational but contradictory

statements about both

Moby Dick represents forces of nature not subject to human control.
Moby Dick represents white racism.

Yahweh delights in the human and natural world.
Yahweh is willing to destroy the human and natueal world.

The question is not whether rational statements can be made but whether ambiguity neecessarily requires us to make a choice between the statements to the exclusion of one or the other..

[Warren Stupidity]

18. Yes but there is a difference between statements about Yahweh,

a character in a book, and statements about god. We can look in various versions of the bible, as we can look in Moby Dick, and find evidence for or against statements about Yahweh, as described in various versions of the bible. It is those statements in the various versions of the bible themselves, that purport to be truthful assertions about a metaphysical entity, that are the problem. They are not subject to rational evaluation. We can say "the bible says god hates all homosexuals"', and that is equivalent to a statement such as "in the book Moby Dick, the character Ahab is hunting a giant rabbit". Both statements can be rationally evaluated based on physical evidence. "God loves all of us" on the other hand, is a statement in a different category.

[okasha]

19. Huh?

Sorry. but yourr response makes no sense.