ImmortalBlood, for three pages now, you have been juggling the words "relative" and "vague" as slightly negative denominators for something you cannot really pinpoint. First of all, relative and vague are not synonyms and do not even have anything do with eachother. Something can be vague, but not relative, or be clearly defined, and still be relative. An apple is relatively small compared to a watermelon, but relatively big compared to a pea. Yet I have little trouble distinguishing an apple from either, or from say, a car tyre.

Besides, if we follow your statement that I quoted above, this whole discussion would be moot. Which, following Albides, I strongly believe it is. Or to put it more clearly: If it is all relative, then what prompted you to say "There are no gods?"



As a completely whimsical attempt at exchanging perspectives and ideas:

ImmortalBlood, you are my god.

It's the truth. He doesn't shut up about you.

They heal you though and restore attributes. They're not just idols (the Nine). And the Daedra do talk to you. It's possible the Nine may not be gods...but they're real.

Just to throw a wrench of my own in the discussion : veneration isn't the sole province of gods - various cultures offer venerations to spirits, ancestors and the like - on nirn an example would be the ashlander's ancestor worship. In Ashlander culture they're defintively not gods, the mantle falls squarely on the good daedra's shoulders but are honered and venerated notheless.

The Tribunal's saints are another, and I wouldn't be surprised if the Nine Divines cult also had some saints too.

the tribunal can't be gods. if gods are divine beings, they can't be gods.

There are dead gods in real world mythologies than there are letters in this sentence.

A being's place...such as where they are standing?

That's the thing, you see "godhood" as a fixed position. Like a peg in its place. But without worship, without that PPC (Purpose, perspective, context) all of the sudden you are un"godhood"ed. Some even suggest that one losses their power when not worshipped. I think someone posted a link about that.



I was using it both ways and both ways fit n the way I was using them.

But worship is based on purporse, perspective and context. If you have a purporse to do it, a certain perspective that inclines you to do it and the context as a motivating factor, you do worship, and there for the being becomes a "god". But if you do not have the PPC to worship then you do not, and there for that being losses it's "godhood". Well you may say "Well no that just doesn't make it your god" well what if nobody worships it. You said it yourself, then it ceases to be a god.



I wasn't using them as the same word. I used them as two different words discribing something. Any suggestion that I did other wise is simply confusion on your part or a lack of my ability to explain well enough for you.



I explained this already but I will repeat it once again.

There are no gods is an equation that you can be given. Out of all the scenarios and possibilities that can be thrown concerning "godhood" in TES, because "godhood" is relative based on PPC, you can be given at least one equation, one scenario where there are no gods rendering all absolutism to relativity concerning "godhood".



And once you start worshipping me (don't please) I will be a "god" and once you stop I will no longer be one.



Mages with healing powers restore your attributes and talk with you yet they aren't gods. They can be real and not be gods. "Godhood" is like beauty, in the eye of the beholder.

Say for example you see someone with blonde hair. And you say that person is good looking. I say that person is not good looking, say I like red hair. So we have a scenario where a person with blonde and a person with red hair are good looking. Say you change your mind and say you do not like how the blonde haired person looks anymore. Then that person is no longer good looking (pretend we're the only two people on earth or rather 4 in total). But that doesn't change the fact that that person is blonde haired.

Like wise with "godhood" in TES.

No, I don't see godhood as a fixed position, in fact I just said earlier that "godhood is not a... literal position." I'm the one that's been saying this entire time that it's worship that defines whether or not they are gods. Yes, whether or not the person will worship the individual is based on their 'PPC', but once they're worshiping then it cannot be denied that they are worshiping and that the being is therefore a god. I'm the one that brought up that they lose power when not worshiped. You've just changed your entire stance to mine and are repeating my argument back to me...

Your original argument used 'relative' in the philosophical sense, you said that "My point is there is no criteria for a god, it is relative. So there is no absolute way to define a god." That is the philosophical sense, that there is no absolute truth to the matter. You used the normal sense nowhere in that argument... That you recognize that the individuals can become gods, lose that godhood ect goes directly against your original idea that there are no gods; afterall if there are no gods, then how can somebody obtain and lose godhood, and then why did you just say "you do worship, and there for the being becomes a "god"." That worship makes an individual a god is what I've been saying this entire time...

Which brings me to my final conclusion that you're slightly confused on what you believe, these are both statement by you:
-"No matter who worships it makes it a 'god'? I don't think so..."
-"you do worship, and there for the being becomes a 'god'."
Those two statements say the exact opposite thing, and you said them both on this page alone. The first you just said, the second you said in reply to me saying that "the being is still being worshiped by somebody, and they are therefore a god." Which is the same position you are now taking.

I said they were "gods" based in the perspective of the worshipper. It is a "god" in the relative sense but not the absolute sense.

You're trying to read the front and the back of the page while i'm telling you all the good stuff is on the edge. Though I admit it hard to get.

Yes, just not in the 'relative sense' that you originally referred to. I know what you said, I just quoted you, and your statements contradict each other. Not only that, but you were saying the exact same thing that you've been arguing against me for saying for the last eight pages. It's not relative in the philosophical sense, which denies the absolute...

You say that they're "gods" based on the perspective of the worshiper, and I agree with that, I just go on to say that since they have a worshiper who worships them as a god that that therefore makes them a god; as all that it takes to be a god is to be worshiped as a god. Other people's perspectives don't matter; as long as they are somebody's god, they are a god (in the absolute sense as it cannot be denied that they are a god, meaning that somebody worships them)... This all adds up to falsify the notion that 'there are no gods', as a god is just somebody that is worshiped as such by somebody else...

If you believe 'there are no gods', then how is it possible that you admit that worship makes somebody a god. If 'there are no gods', then nothing should be able to make somebody a god...

I find it funny that there needs to be many gods instead of one. No matter, it won't last.
Look at Rome, worshipped a pantheon of gods and now what religion is associated with Rome?

One couldn't contain itself.
And with so many expressions like 'godforsaken' and 'hellish,' there is plenty of doubt that any being has a complete grip over RL existence either.

What religion is associated with Rome? The one with so many saints. ^_^

Oh yes, I forgot, 'god' is what we say it is.
Contradiction? Naww..not at all! :rolleyes:

If I recall correctly, Saints aren't the focal point of Christianity

Funny you should bring up Christ, seeing as he's part of a Holy Trinity that is the same being with different facets. Just as Anu and Padomay came from the Godhead and Nirni was born as soon they reacted.

Except Christ wasn't pointless.

:nono:
Could we try and keep real-world religious debate out of the discussion... thanks bunches...

If I understand MK's ideas rightly, CHIM indicates all beings of the Mundus are gods, ultimately. It's all an amnesiac god who is divided into many parts. Probably not a good idea to raise this issue, though.

I think in that sense it would be more appropriate to say that "all being of the Mundus are God"...

But the person's perspective DOES matter because their perspective is what causes one to worship which is what causes one to become a "god".

Take it as me saying there is no beauty. Well it is a relative term, it is in the eye of the beholder. The perspective doesn't change what one looks like, simply how they are viewed and react. A rose by any other name smells just as sweet. I am saying that the term "god" is no more (in TES) then just the same way one would use the term beauty.

Exactly, but the only thing that matters is whether or not they are worshiping; what perspective caused them to worship is irrelevant, just so long as they are worshiping. The why doesn't matter,which is what your 'PPC' is; it only matters that they're being worshiped, not why. And that you recognize that they can "become a 'god'" automatically means that you reject that godhood is relative in the philosophical sense...

Logical fallacy; that beauty is a relative term does not make god a relative term. There is no way to determine whether something is beautiful (that's why it's relative). There is a way to determine if something is a god, just check and see if somebody is worshiping it as a god; godhood is just the 'state' of being worshiped, beauty is not the state of somebody thinking that it's beautiful...

The "that" is affected by the "why" which is relative. The term "god" is built on a broken foundation. "Godhood" turning it on and off is relative.



You can only discribe aspects of both beauty and "godhood". What is beauty to one isn't to another, same as "godhood."

That the why is relative does not make the term itself relative. As long as the term is, then it is; it doesn't matter why it is, just that it is.

Yes, godhood turning off is relative [to worship], however, this use of the word relativity is not the philosophical sense, so we can agree...

No, I can describe what godhood actually is because godhood can be tested. That test consists of seeing whether or not anybody is worshiping the figure as a god. If somebody is, then it passes the test and is a god; if nobody is, it fails and is not a god. The same logic cannot be applied to beauty due to the fact that beautiful is an adjective while god is a noun. Almost all adjectives are relative, nouns are not...

What's more, beauty isn't an object. It's a quality. See, a better anology would be rejecting kingship because what constitutes a kingdom is nebulous; a kingdom being a state, a state being a place occupied by a large group of people, a large group of people being relative. Or even better, rejecting the distinction between a town, village or city because none of these have discrete limits. Poor Pluto is also left out of the cold by a simple redefinition of the term planet.


It's a good question, but anyone can ask good questions. The trick is answering them. So why do you think? Keeping in mind anthropologists would probably make a strong distincton between the two.

Firstly, just to quible, one could make the distinction between veneration, or paying reverential respect, or worship, paying reverential homage. But then one runs the risk of being tangled up in semantics. I'd also argue inherent in the distinction of the term ancestor or god is whether that particular culture perceives the beings as still "one of us", as an ancestor spirit would be, as a deceased part of the family, or "one of them", as an ascended hero would be. And, considering the genre we're discussing and that Campbell's monomyth is near writ in stone as the formula for epic fantasy, we know heroes are always those people who are outside the bonds of society and are so fundamentally changed by their journey that the return is almost always awkward and jarring. Further, I'd doubt most ancestors represent anything other than familiar obligations, as opposed to heroes, who represent cultural values and discoveries, or gods, who represent either cultural values or forces.

Saints, at least in Catholic tradition, aren't supposed to be worshipped. But they are supposed to be venerated (honoured), and prayed to purely for their intercessionary abilities. Never mind that in the folk religion they often are worshipped and people often connect with them in a real way. As a person of Italian ancestry, I've heard stories of people seeing saints, healing and influencing affairs, even appearing to save lives.

As far as Nirn go, I'd use a the 'power dating back before creation' criterion to sort things out - the aedras and daedras are, Talos (well, parts of him at least) is, and the Tribunal's main power source was. The nacestor and the saints don't.

That's not 100% foolproof but I think it's a decent basis.