UESP Magnus, Lorkhan, Padomay, Anu and Nir. See for yourself.

Yea, uhmm, that would do absolutely no good in the context of this discussion...

But the change in one's status makes it relative in every sense since it is not absolute anymore.



What about "A Beauty" vs "god"?

That the status can be changed is the whole point as it accepts that there are gods; afterall if there weren't gods then the status couldn't be changed as it would have nothing to change to.

Also, you seem to misunderstand what 'relative' actually means in both senses, that or you don't know what absolute means. A change in one's status flips on and off the godhood, and in that sense godhood is relative to worship (that's the first sense, relative to something). However, once there is worship, nothing can change that it is in fact there, meaning that in the sense of there being no absolute truth, it is not relative. If there is a worshiper, the worshiper is either absolutely there (meaning he's worshiping), or he's absolutely not there (meaning he's not worshiping). The worshiper can not be in some in-between place, therefore it's always absolute; and before you say it, 'why (PPC)' he's worshiping doesn't matter, because regardless of the 'why' he is still either worshiping or not worshiping and that's the real variable. The 'why' may determine when it flips on and off, but that it can flip on is the whole point that makes it not relative.


Care to tell me just what "a beauty" is? I'm afraid I'm unfamiliar with that use of the word. Unless you mean in saying "she's a beauty", in which case it is still being used adjective and therefore you can't use it in comparison to 'god'... I'll take the Spelling B route and ask you to use it in a sentence...

RSVP, OP!

But it's still based on the relativity of the perspective of the person. Like the hanging ornament example. You can't deny it is there but based on where you look at it from it changes shape.

"That person is a beauty." English isn't my first language but I know depending on how one accents the sentence it can be either or.

Explain to me then, how, once the 'status' is achieved (and you've already claimed it can be achieved which in and of itself goes against 'there are no gods'), that the person can both be in the status and not in the status. Because 'why' there in the status doesn't change the fact that they are, and my perspective won't change whether or not something is your god and if its your god then its in the status...

Yea, that's the same way I used it, and it's still being used as a adjective; meaning you can't make that comparison...

Wow. People get as worked up over ES gods as they seem to over real-world gods. Glad we're over the internet.

Seriously, though, in my opinion most or all of the gods are simply political tools. The Tribunal gained power by becoming "gods," calling Tiber a "god" gives him dynastic legitimacy and makes religious folk think twice about rebelling since the Emperor is supposedly a god's decendant, The Nine Divines religion as a whole was a political ploy by Allesia, the list goes on and on. If there are any gods in the ES universe, they are buried so deeply under politics and gods made up to suit the politics they'll never be found.

Classifying something as a "God" is a matter of perspective. For example, if I am religion A, I see Being A as being a "God", but I do not see Being B, C etc. etc. as a god. Nothing is a god unless somebody perceives it as a god.

From about half-way through the discussion became more of a 'can anything be rightly called a god in any setting' than 'are the TES god's real', TES just happens to be the medium used for the discussion; it could actually translate directly over into real-life or just about any other fictional setting...

I'm going to assume that you haven't read the thread...

Read the thread? Are you serious? :blink:

Well, just like the last two pages would work really...

Because from person's A perspective they are a "god" and from person's B perspective they are not, hence they are and they are not which is why the term is relative.

Hey, I was beginning to think that you'd forgotten about us...

And no, that does not make it relative and no that doesn't change the status; as long as the one person is worshiping them then they're still in the status of being worshiped, making them still a god all around... as long as person A is worshiping them, they fit the criteria of 'being worshiped' and are therefore a god. You're god may not be my god, but it's still a god if you're worshiping him and my perspective can't change that...

If you want to go back to the old role-model example, your role-model might not be my role-model, but I can't deny just because of my perspective that that person is your role-model... 'Relative' means that there is no absolute truth concerning the matter, but since I can know for sure (absolutely) whether or not the god is being worshiped by somebody, then it is not relative...

...and just because he's not your role model doesn't mean he's not a role model. Good anology. Wish I had thought of it 20 pages ago.

Oh, I've already used it once somewhere back in the oblivion that is the rest of this thread; didn't get through then and probably won't this time either...

After reading the entire thread, I'm still unclear on whether the OP believes that 0 or 1 angels can dance on the head of a pin, or if he believes that both 0 and 1 angels are dancing on the head of a pin until you examine it, at which point it becomes 0 or 1 and stays that way.

More seriously, gods aren't relative in TES at all. Worship is relative - not everyone worships every Aedra and Daedra, but they continue to exist in their various forms under their various names. They don't lose power when faced with someone who is not a worshipper, and I would hesitate to assume that most people who don't worship a particular Aedra or Daedra also don't believe said Aedra or Daedra is a god, although many may.

The Tribunal's (and Dagoth Ur's) status as gods is also not relative. Almalexia's and Vivec's power (as seen in the game) and Sotha Sil's (as seen in the lore) was based on their ability to travel to Red Mountain and use the tools, not on who believed or did not believe that they were truly gods.

I don't think asserting whether the Aedra, Daedra, Tribunal, Mannimarco, etc. are truly gods or not is that useful a question - it's axiomatic that they are gods, whether you believe in them or not. I'm sure all the non-worshippers of Mehrunes Dagon who died during his attack on the Imperial City would be comforted by the idea that he wasn't a god relative to them, but does the question have any practical value to them?

No just busy with important things.

But that is still relative to your reality. Perhaps in my reality pencils dance around and talk to me. Just because from my perspective that is how I see it, does not make it so. You can say but that's just imagined, well so is worship isn't it? Sure you bow down and what not, but I can talk back to the pencil and it would be the same thing.

Now i'm not denying that the daedra are the wheel spokes and the aedra the spaces between etc, but you have to realize that a "god" status is something no more then imagined. There is nothing that makes a god in TES other then perspective. It is like role model, or like a friend. To someone it is as they see it, but it is only relevant within their realm of reality and their perspective. That is why I am saying there are no "gods" and I am just as right as you are who says there are. Since PPC is relevant imagine the entire platform of TES being a massive chalk board and all these equations that are possibilities are thrown on. At least one of those possibilties = no gods perspective.

Say I enter into Tamriel and you are someone there. You pray to Dibella for example and say that she is a god. I say there are no gods. You tell me but look I am praying and worshiping. I say that does not matter, be cause I do not and it is meaningless. There are no gods.

Say I enter into Tamriel and you are someone there. I tell you there are no gods. You say there are gods. I tell you look I am not praying or worshiping any of them. You say that does not matter because you do and it is meaningful. There are gods.

I suppose since the thread is almost up I should let everyone in on the whole game. It was an excercise in philisophical thinking and relativity. My title was no more different then saying "Water is cold." While some others replied with "the water is warm." Both are right, and both are wrong. Or better yet there is no wrong or right answer.

From our relative perspectives we are both right and nothing can change the mind of the other because the mind of the other is realtive to each and everyone's own reality. It was an attempt to challenge the norm and to add another dimension into what I thought a rather boring line of discussion that usually goes around through the lore forum concerning the repetative beaten horse of CHIM or which race would win in a battle and so on and so forth.

Out of the people here only Laugar kept up with it and "reached the end of the line" of arguement so to speak.

It's been interesting and perhaps i'll play devil's advocate (I need a more neutral term) in another thread splitting hairs so that angels may or may not dance on the ends of it.

And I say that you overestimate just what the term 'god' means because it in and of itself is not a relative term; throw in the myth-magic of TES and it becomes even less of one. Take a look at the example I gave you and tell me how it could work any other way; how does my perspective stop your role-model from being a role-model (it translates directly over)??? Sadly, I'm unavoidably detained for the next two weeks and so must bid you good-day here... :foodndrink:


But I still say you're wrong and are misunderstanding just what 'god' and 'relative' actually mean...

Well the fact is that there is "something". But not one, almighty, Christian God, just like powerful beings from different planes.

It doesn't stop the role model from being a rode model to whomever that person views them as a role model at all. But it depends on the perspective. I can agree with your perspective and say "yes in your reality the role model is yours." But at the end of the day to me, from my perspective it means nothing.

Again it is like each of us putting our hand in a pool of water and me saying "this water is cold." And you saying "no it's perfect for a swim it is warm." Neither one of us is really right or wrong.

So what are we back to square effin one here? The "Pick for yourself" thing I was always heralding before?