If that's the case, we're free to reject your definition. Done. Easy. Discussion over.


Okay. Quote fixed.

And no, there's no such thing as an equation for a house. I'm staggered that I'd even need to explain this. But http://www.google.com.au/ig?hl=en for you to look for one in.


I'm suddenly a Greek pagan revivalist. I decided just now. My gods are finite and flawed, and some of them were mortals. And I find your utter lack of respect for my religion insulting and insensitive. I'd probably find your own definition of a god flawed but you've failed to give us one. May Zeus smite you for this blasphemy.

No, you simplified it for me; you've already came right out and said it (both in your earlier equations and elsewhere) you just won't admit it. You see the gods like that, not me...

They can't deny that he is an Emperor. You can say Tiber or even Julius Caesar wasn't an Emperor all you want, but that won't change that they were indeed Emperors. They ruled a collective of kingdoms, regardless of whether or not you may or may not accept their rulership as legit...

Extra Note: Even Vivec refers to the other gods as being "completely immortal", as opposed to himself...

You seem to miss his point. He said that there are no one set of measurements that make up the definition of a house, no concrete measurements; whether or not you can give him measurements that might possibly fulfill that definition is not the question, of course you can and that those measurements can be anything and still constitute a house is the point. I'd elaborate further to say that I can have a cardboard box that's a house, you may not think its a house, you may think its just a cardboard box, but that doesn't mean its not a house; rather, it can be both...

Tell me what's lazier: Going through the trouble of having any working definition for people, or writing off all definitions completely under the pretense of it being 'relative'. I'll help out; the former takes effort, the latter takes no thought whatsoever. I can spend absolutely no energy and write off anything I want to as relative, what takes work is for me to do the opposite...

http://www.housesofthefuture.com.au/hof_houses04.html, for short term accommodation. Unfortunately hitting your head against a cardboard wall isn't as satisfying as good solid brick. Amongst other things.

Perhaps you just haven't seen them, eh? For those on the other side of the fence won't jump it to see you; no, they've seen mortals. But you can't see over the fence to see them though. You did, but perhaps you forgot?

I sit on the fence, perhaps one day you will.

Is it wetproof cardboard? Or your standard kind that soaks up and gets all soggy and easy to fall apart? Showers, kitchens, and the entire house during rainy days could be destroyed if not.

I think I'd be just as concerned about fire...

I never came in here to convert you friend. You do as you please. It's just a meaningless game anyway.



Not really fixed. More like altered. I'm saying there are set criteria for what a house is even though there are many. I have yet to have a criteria from you concerning on what a "god" is.



I was refering to Daedra/Aedra but whatever.



Let me ask you something and it is a simple yes and no. Concerning all of the "gods" in TES do you believe they are all gods? Even the ones that are similar or the same between the different religions?



I can't deny that he is seen as Emperor by his subject based on their purpose, perspective and context. I can't deny that they have power. But perspective and power don't make divinity do they? I've yet to have a criteria from you to what a god is. Until I find a better one, purpose perspective and context within relativity will suffice.



Okay let's try geometry. Imagine a house is a triangle. A triangle has a very wide range of shapes and sizes, but all the angles add up to 180 degrees right? So even though we have all of these different triangles one thing still remains constant, the need of 1800 degrees which needs to be satisfied. Likewise with a house. It's simply much more difficult to discribe and pin down and it's getting us off topic.



But here is the thing, no one has given a definate definition of what a god is. People here simply accept the purpose, perspective and context that the followers within TES offer them. Though I admit some here have the ability to stay on their tip toes and look at it a bit more from above, I havn't really seen anyone sprout wings and fly over head. My point about "godhood" relativity is a bit on a "CHIM" level though I find that concept painfully boring i try to work it within the frames of the story.

I wouldn't say that is lazy. Perhaps you don't get it or i've failed to explain it well enough for people here. It isn't me writing off all the gods as "oh they're all relative there for none of them are real."

Here is another example. Have you ever driven by someone's house and from something those geometric ornaments are hanging and as you drive by you see it "change shapes." Likewise are the "gods". Nothing really changes about them. They have their set limitations and what not but their "godhood" changes based on your purpose, perspective and context. So you are thrown a multitude of equations surrounding the TES world and all of the "gods'" "godhood" in which at least one of those equations state that based on the relativity of purpose, perspective and context there are no "gods."

Does that help? Perhaps when the weekend comes I can try to go a bit more in depth, maybe that will be help? Yes? No?

Yes, especially those that are similar between the different religions. Whether or not they are the same type of god or if it's permanent is where they differ...

But we're not talking about divinity here, we're talking about whether they're an Emperor. That he has subjects to be seen as an Emperor by makes him such, oversimplification yes, but just with that he's fulfilled all the criteria. Now, just switch the anologies. "A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, often in control of some part of nature or reality." Tell me, where does this fall through?

No, a house is what I make it, confining myself only by the definition of it being a shelter. Just to let my mind wander for a moment, I'd pose that the only requirement for a house is a roof, something residing above and serving a purpose (in this case to keep the rain away); can a god be the same?

I think Albides has been giving them since page 2 at least...

I can agree with the point that for me or for some individual the being might not serve to us the purpose of a god from our perspective and in our context. That just means that that being is not our god; not that they're not a god.

So then you have to run into a contradiction. You end up with two gods that are similar yet do some different things. Lorkhan has how many variations to him depending on what end of Tamriel you are from. To some he's a good guy (Nords IIRC) to others a bad guy (High Elves IIRC). So there you enter the realm of relativity in which purpose, perspective and context destroy all divinity.

Why? Because you can end up in an equation where divinity contradicts itself into nothingness.



You are right, it is a bad direct example and it seems the point was missed so we'll move on to my question of what the criteria is for godhood is. Powers, belief and worship?



We're talking about Code of Hammurabi what a house is type deal. Not the hippy artsy fartsy "Home is where the heart is."



Incomplete and relative.



But don't you see? Godhood is just based on three relative perspectives. There is no mark, to stamp of approval that says "O-K you are a god!" And because of that relativity wins out.

My problem with this whole thread is that the title of this discussion only really makes sense when we take the conclusion above to be false.

Whether or not he's a good god or bad god is, yes, relative, as 'good' and 'bad' are relative terms. That's the only thing that's relative in the statement though...

I gave you criteria in the section you quoted...

Semantics, a house is a house...

I'll repeat: That just means that that being is not our god; not that they're not a god.

I ask if god is even the proper term to use in this situation. It is quite a loose term in dictionaries.

Witness:
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/god
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_%28word%29
http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-9365740
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/god


Possibly diety is a better term to use?

Oh, [censored] it.

There are no houses either.

?



It wasn't about good and bad, it was about how purpose perspective and context all affect the divinity of a "god" because it is relative.



Yes and I was repeating for clarification.



Triangle example, but yes the house example is semantics as well.



If you as a Redguard of Azura is a god they'll probably say no. Not because it isn't their god but in their religion they already have their gods, and Azura (The cyro-morrowind version) isn't theirs.

They may say no, but would that be because they don't think Azura's a god, or because in their culture they haven't been taught of Azura. Ignorance is not the same as relativity... Besides you just repeated what I said: Azura isn't one of their gods...

So you are claiming that by power and worship one comes a god and that is the criteria for it and on the other hand denying the worship aspect of it does not change if one is a god or not even though that is part of the criteria...? You've reached a contradiction.

I'm at a loss for how you managed to get that out of my last statement. Worship is still there, just not by the Redguard...

ImmortalBlood, I don't normally do this, but I will just be frank this time.

You continuously point out contradictions in what other people say, but I, for one, lost on page two what on good earth you were arguing against. What I see now is some rather useless parrying of arguments in which your side of the argument seems to hinge more on proving everyone else wrong through trivial semantics and complicated sophisms than on proving yourself right.

That's the problem with arguing nihilism and/or total relativism. The only place it goes is to say "not necessarily..." to all other arguments. Not that this disproves the concept, but it doesn't make for a very meaningful debate.

Full ack.


"Your god ain't my god" isn't a criteria that serves as definition for "god".

Example:
The Tribunal explicitly are gods for Morrowind and the Dunmer, they never intended to be anything else. To the Dunmer, they are gods. Bretons may not care at all about the Tribunal, nor worship them. It doesn't make the Tribunal less divine to the Dunmer if a Breton at the other end of the continent calls Vehk an arrogant blackhearted devil.

Besides, I like the deity approach of Lord Magiku.

[/retreats from the dirtpile]

Agreed on all the rest, but how does calling them 'deities' rather than 'gods' change anything... I'll agree that one problem may just be that the term 'god' isn't what should be being debated. If ImmortalBlood's criteria doesn't match the definition that defines what a god is, then it doesn't change what is and what is not a god, it only means he's no longer discussing gods; its not that they aren't gods, just that he's not talking about gods... however whatever the correct term would be for his idea I wouldn't know, but since the first reference in the definition of 'deity' is "a god or goddess", I don't think that's it...

Note: [refrains from a "your momma" joke concerning a dirtpile]...

So for example say your character goes through the storyline, we'll use Morrowind for example, you are the Nevarine, you got all the little trinkets that you can get, you are a high level and all of that stuff. You have a large amount of power, as part of the criteria you see of "godhood". But not one person will worship you. Say then you go into the woods and some random person comes up to you, bows and prays to you, worships you. Does that suddenly make you a "god"? Nevermind that nobody else worships you. You are still a "god" right? Because as you said even though you aren't everyone's "god" you are someone's "god".


And what if in 5 minutes they change their mind? Did you just lose your "godhood"? And what if they change their mind again? Do you get it back? And again, do you lose it?



You're entitled to your opinion though I suggest you try to not get frustrated over mine. I don't expect everyone to "get it" and no I don't mean to say that i'm right, but to procede into such a discussion and make sense of which way is up.



But it isn't nihilism or total relativism. Simply the relativity of what a "god" is within TES.



Nobody here made that arguement.

:goodjob: Correct across the board. I know that's wasn't your intention, but still (it doesn't make them somebody else's god, it makes them their god).

I'll repeat what I said in the post above yours: If your criteria doesn't match the definition that defines what a god is, then it doesn't change what is and what is not a god, it only means you're no longer discussing gods; its not that they aren't gods, just that your not talking about gods (it doesn't change the definition, it changes the subject)...

A god, by definition is "a being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, often in control of some part of nature or reality." If you're talking about something that doesn't match that criteria, which your view of a god doesn't, then you're not talking about gods... Also, since your criteria includes them being absolute, it's important to note that you're discussing what constitutes 'God', not 'gods'...

Edit: grammar

Because in ES they actually appear to mortals. They are usually finite, very powerful magically, fairly important but not much missed outside their own culture if their "godhood" is put to the test and found lacking, like the Tribunal.

The line of reasoning you're using leads that way. If it works on gods, why not anything else? There always seems to be wiggle-room. And so you end up with no absolutes and a world of arbitrary label shuffling - which, again, isn't necessarily wrong, just (in the nicest sense possible) pointless for a forum discussion. Or for most forum discussions, at any rate.

Since everything in TES is relative anyway, apart from a CHIM's eye view, which is the sum of all relativities, then it is fair to say that godhood is relative. But that's not really saying anything. There's a convenient arbitrary absolute that is the label 'god' (broadly speaking, though different people define it slightly different ways) which we may as well all use so that we can communicate efficiently, and while you can take off the label and slap on a new one, the thing it was originally attached to still stays the same. So whether you call it 'god' or 'dog' or 'Hilary Clinton's peachy bum-cheeks' doesn't really matter as much as the underlying concept itself.