It doesn't. It means the same thing. Looking up gods in Wikipedia redirects to the page on deities. They're also listed as synonyms on most dictionaries.


As I've been saying somewhere in the past 60 pages, these traits are not exclusive to ES gods. Read previous posts, as I couldn't be bothered repeating for those who weren't listening.

But a powerful being that is worshipped are discriptive attributes. Sort of like me discribing a cat, it has fur and legs, yet not everything that has fur and legs is a cat.

"Gods" seems like a relative term by itself as a word. So perhaps my war isn't against the definition, but against the lack there of a good enough one and trying to destroy this illusionary relative term that poses as an absolute.

No, its not like you trying to describe a cat like that (yay, I made a rhyme ); unless you were describing a cat as "Any of various other carnivorous mammals of the family Felidae", in which case everything that fits that definition is a cat... why? because the way that you described a cat did not entail its definition, whereas that description of a god does entail its definition...

If you believe that the term is not good enough, then doesn't that make your war against that definition by the fact of you not finding it adequate? I would go on, but I'd just be repeating what I just said in my last post...

But it does entail. A cat IS four legged and fury. So my point stands.

No, it doesn't. A cat is not just four-legged and fury, a god is just a powerful being that is worshiped...

A cat is not just 4 legs and fur.

A god is just powerful and worshipped.


I'm not seeing the point you are trying to make. Why yes for one and no for the other?

:facepalm:
Seriously? Really, I can't see how you're not getting this, its simple logic:

Since there is more to being a cat than just having four legs and fur, and since there are other things that also have four legs and fur, then just saying that a cat has four legs and fur does not entail the definition of a cat (as any definition would apply exclusively to cats). However, there is not more to being a god than just being powerful and being worshiped, there are not other things that also are powerful and worshiped (else they too would be gods), so just saying that a god is powerful and has worshipers does entail the definition of a god (as that definition does apply exclusively to gods). This all surmounts to make your previous anology a false anology.

Really, either I'm crazy, something is just not clicking with you for some reason, or I should be losing all faith in mankind right now...

But being a "god" entitles more then just power and worship. Perhaps knowledge, immortality etc.

In any case I think the term is just weak. You can't come up to me in Cyrodiil and tell me "Talos is a god" and make it absolute. It is still a relative perspective. There is nothing absolute that makes something a "god" in the TES world. Purpose, perspective, context.

As I said before, if you think that the term is weak then it doesn't change anything concerning the term and what it refers to, it just means that that isn't the term you're looking for. The term 'god' still refers to something that's powerful and is being worshiped, if what you're talking about doesn't refer to something that's powerful and is being worshiped, then you're not taking about 'gods'. Being a god only requires those things, being whatever it is that you think a god should be is completely different from just being a god, and therefore you need a different term to argue over...

Edit: The TES gods may not be something, but they are gods...

...to those who share that purporse, perspective and context says relativity.

Gods have mythic significance. Is mythopeia a matter of semantics?

:thumbsdown: No, relativity says no such thing, it says nothing about the basic definition of what constitutes a god; and its that basic definition that cannot be refuted or changed because if it is then you are no longer talking about gods...

Also, thank you for conveniently not commenting on my actual argument in that post, but rather skipping to a minor detail that I added on at the end and making an irrelevant continuance to it... If you'd care to comment on my actual argument in my last post, then I will gladly continue this discussion, until then I will take my leave assuming you having nothing better to do than keep typing the word 'relativity'...

Well then I just have to go back to the Morrowind character example I gave with the single worshiper that changed his mind often. Is not a "god" more then that?

I'm not disputing how people percieve things, simply why.

If this is frustrating you, I can just stop posting. I'd rather not get into an unpleasant situation over something so minor like TES.

No, its not; 'god' is a very over-rated thing. If it matches the definition of a god, then its a god; if you don't like the definition then don't dispute the term that it refers to, rather find what term it is that actually fits what you think should be the definition...

Note: I'm not frustrated, I'm tired...

I think what Luggar is saying is.Think of the power of storms,(supercells.)It has powers beyond man's.Is it a god?No,but some people in the past worshiped;as such.So to those that did;they were gods.Why?The acts of the people proclaimed,them gods.Thus they became gods.Take the golden calf;from the writing's of Moses.People worship it;thus becoming a god.Yet it has no powers at all.It is what it is.But by the act of worship makes it so.So it is the act of proclaiming a god.
If I have defined your debate wrong,please correct me.

But I think the definition is so vague that it does become relative. And dingosky95 details that exactly.




No you are spot on. What a god is relative to purporse perspective and context.

That's not quite what I was getting at but you're somewhat in the right direction; namely because here we're talking about actual beings rather than such things as storms and golden calves...

Vagueness doesn't matter, whatever falls under that 'vague' definition is, by definition a god (therefore going beyond all relativity). That it encompasses a vast number of things doesn't make it relative, it makes it a very general term; why, because nothing concerning the actual definition changes from one perspective, purpose or context to the next. Despite who's looking at it, the being is still being worshiped by somebody, and they are therefore a god; it's as simple as that. Like I said, the term 'god' is very over-rated, that it doesn't mean what you think it should mean just means that 'god' isn't the term that you should be looking for to describe your ideal being...

If you think the definition of the term 'god' is vague, find a new term, don't bash the definition because the definition can't change...

This whole exercise summarised is that Immortalblood seems to understand the concept of a god but doesn't want to actually call them gods. Which means there's really no argument here except a breakdown of communication.

I'm not sure if the understanding of the concept of a god is there, I believe he just wants 'god' to mean something that it doesn't so he can call it relative and thereby verify/reinforce his own line of thought...

No matter who worships it makes it a "god"? I don't think so, that is why not everyone has all the same gods. That is why some nations don't consider other nation's "gods" to be "gods". Worship is based on feeling and your feeling for example does not change my perspective on what "gods" are.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, like wise so is "godhood" in TES.



No, that would be boring. Perhaps i'm just playing devil's advocate and i'm enjoying the exchange of perspectives and ideas. That is also a possibility.

No, we've already been through this: that just makes those gods their gods and not your gods, but they're still gods nonetheless... No, not everybody has the same gods, gods are not universal, but if they're a god then they're a god; just because I may not view something as a god doesn't make it not a god, it just makes it not my god; simple. I repeat, that the term is over-rated and doesn't refer to what you'd like it to refer to doesn't change the meaning of the term... Stop arguing with a definition and instead find a new term...



Also, I don't think the whole "Boring and Therefore Wrong" thing is applicable in that sense...

"It isn't your god but their god."

I don't think the Dunmer view the Nine Divines as gods at all. I'll agree they view them as the Imperial's "gods" but they themselves don't consider them to be gods.

It isn't what I want the term to mean, I accept what it means and find the word relative.

It doesn't matter what the Dunmer view the Nine Divines as, the Dunmer can completely reject the idea that the Nine Divines exist, but that won't make it so the Nine Divines aren't gods, it'll just make it so they aren't the Dunmer's gods. Godhood is not a state to be achieved, a title of power or literal position in a pantheon that you can acquire, it is just a term used to refer to somebody that's worshiped; sorta like how a role-model is just somebody you look up to, as long as somebody is looking up to that person, then they're a role-model, if the person stops looking up to them they stop becoming a role model. I may think your role-model is garbage, but that doesn't mean that they aren't a role-model for you... A god is just like a role-model to a higher level...

If somebody starts worshiping me as a god right now then I become their god, therefore I become a god. Whether or not I'm your god is completely irrelevant to whether or not I'm their god, and as long as I'm somebody's god then I'm a god... If everybody stops worshiping the Divines or the Daedra as gods, then they cease to be gods. Their state in the universe doesn't change, they're just no longer gods (Note: Bad example, due to mythopoeic forces their state in the universe will actually change, but I hope you get the idea...)

The term is not relative, you're wanting to make it relative because you seem to think it means something more than it does; hence why I keep saying that the term is over-rated...

You managed to contradict yourself and argue my point all in that one post. All I have to do is explain how:



Not a state to be achieved yet you achieve that state when you have at least one worshipper.



So it is a relative term, relative to if there is or isn't worship.


So you've stated just how godhood can be achieved, and lost though right before you said that it can't be achieved (there for I assume it can't be lost either in that same breath), and you also gave an example, a role model which one day someone can be one and another they can not. So you've shown my point exactly.

There isn't really much else here for me to say to this.

Well perhaps I should clarify that I don't want the term to be "something more" regardless how many times that is repeated. It doesn't really fit to argue my case even if that was my opinion/goal/whatever.

I must say i'm surprised by this turn of events.

By 'state' I meant the type of state I mentioned later in my post, a literal state in the universe. A being's place in the universe does not change by 'achieving godhood' (though once again, bad example due to the power of myths in the TES universe)...

:thumbsdown: No, wrong again. You are twisting two different uses of the word 'relative' to suite your argument. Your argument was that godhood is relative to purpose, perspective and context, and that it is therefore in general a relative term. However, a term can be relative to something (in this case worship) and not be a relative term. A term being relative to something simply means that it is in someway related to the other concept. A relative term is one in which the ultimate truth/nature of that term cannot be known.

Whether or not there is or is not worship decides whether or not the being fits into the definition of a god. Purpose, perspective and context however does not decide whether or not the being fits into the definition of a god. Therefore, you're wrong; you are simply getting lost in your own false logic...


Edit: Note: If you want to say that godhood is relative to worship (but not a relative term in the philosophical sense), then in that sense of the word relative I will gladly agree with you...