There are no gods : The Elder Scrolls Series Discussion

» Thu Nov 19, 2009 6:59 pm

Who wrote the Arcturian heresy? I don't see any Imperial Society of Excellant Standing endorsing it.

» Thu Nov 19, 2009 8:14 am

Yeah, I just re-read it and it sounds like it was transcribed from an oral account. A conspiracy theorist in a bar.

» Thu Nov 19, 2009 11:25 am

Using our world's examples to justify one thing or another doesn't make much sense to me within the context of TES. I've thought about it and I have made up my mind on what the criteria is for a "god."

Why do the Dunmer not consider the 8 and 1 gods?

Why do the Imperials not consider the Tribunal gods?

Why do all these different factions have different gods, have more or lack some?

The criteria is purpose.

Vivec has no purpose for a Breton in High Rock. So to them he is not a god.

If they lose their purpose they are no longer gods. I am not denying their power or ability by saying they have no purpose to one or the other, simply defining what it is to be a god. Anything one worships can be a god. It has been brought up that Daedra/Aedra are the personification of something and that is what sets them apart say from worshipping money. I don't think that hampers my point. You can worship the sea and give it a personification. The very word itself means to place a personic complex upon something.

So to me, or better yet my character, since all of the gods have no purpose there are no gods.

» Thu Nov 19, 2009 9:13 am

Why do the Dunmer not consider the 8 and 1 gods?

They don't? Eschatological revelation; they will when they die.

Why do the Imperials not consider the Tribunal gods?

They don't? I mean, not many Imperials in Morrowind, and the ones there anyway don't all wave the anti-theist flag around do they?

» Thu Nov 19, 2009 7:23 am

If they lose their purpose they are no longer gods. I am not denying their power or ability by saying they have no purpose to one or the other, simply defining what it is to be a god. Anything one worships can be a god. It has been brought up that Daedra/Aedra are the personification of something and that is what sets them apart say from worshipping money. I don't think that hampers my point. You can worship the sea and give it a personification. The very word itself means to place a personic complex upon something.

So to me, or better yet my character, since all of the gods have no purpose there are no gods.

Ok, so that proves that your character doesn't believe there are gods, but that doesn't answer the question. I could worship a flower as a god, but it will never be anything more than a flower, and eventually it will die. Just because the Dunmer don't think the 8 and 1 are gods doesn't mean they aren't, and just because the Empire doesn't follow the tribunal doesn't mean that they are not gods. If there was a concrete criteria for what makes a god this question would never come up, but there is not, so we just do the best we can to try to decide what to believe in and what not to. Imho.

» Thu Nov 19, 2009 7:58 pm

So to me, or better yet my character, since all of the gods have no purpose there are no gods.

This seems a decent line of thought, however I don't follow how you come to the conclusion that none of the gods have purpose; unless you mean to say that they don't have purpose for everybody, and therefore nobody. However, the Aedra and Daedra have fundamental purpose to Nirn, the Aedra are part of it and the Daedra are too, just not in the same manner. Time has a purpose for everybody on Nirn, as does the sky, as does destruction; so how is it that the Aedra/Daedra lack purpose? Or how is it that they've lost their purpose?

» Thu Nov 19, 2009 7:22 pm

Using our world's examples to justify one thing or another doesn't make much sense to me within the context of TES. I've thought about it and I have made up my mind on what the criteria is for a "god."

Why do the Dunmer not consider the 8 and 1 gods?

Why do the Imperials not consider the Tribunal gods?

Why do all these different factions have different gods, have more or lack some?

The criteria is purpose.

Vivec has no purpose for a Breton in High Rock. So to them he is not a god.

If they lose their purpose they are no longer gods. I am not denying their power or ability by saying they have no purpose to one or the other, simply defining what it is to be a god. Anything one worships can be a god. It has been brought up that Daedra/Aedra are the personification of something and that is what sets them apart say from worshipping money. I don't think that hampers my point. You can worship the sea and give it a personification. The very word itself means to place a personic complex upon something.

So to me, or better yet my character, since all of the gods have no purpose there are no gods.

All gods stand for something universal to the mortal mind. Vivec has a sphere that relates to Bretons. If you need proof, look at his standing in Yokuda.

Take Lord Hyamentar's sig here. A god of tea would stand for the mental and sensual quibble that causes us to prize a bunch of hot water with plants in it. That would be a universal trait of humans, but some cultures would find it more important than others. Eskimos don't care about tea, but they would still enjoy it for the same reasons given the chance. A god of tea is a being whose identity is equated with the sum of all tea.

» Thu Nov 19, 2009 7:38 pm

I agree with the main topic. It's all just really powerful...things. Spirits, beings, take your pick. Some people worship them like some real world folk worship nature. They're powerful and mysterious and can do things you can't, they MUST be gods. never mind powerful magic can do near-on anything they can do.

Daedra can be banished again and again and again until they have nothing of themselves left, and are simply forces, like Nature. No longer a self-aware being but just an abstract.

Aedra can be destroyed completely, but the effects on the world may be disastrous

Morrowind's religion follows leeches on another being's power

Shor is a corpse and so are said leeches.

CHIM is all [censored].

These beings are all very very powerful and should be respected by the beings of the fictional world they inhabit because if they don't these things will SMITE THEM!

But they are simply very powerful creatures, nothing more.

» Thu Nov 19, 2009 9:52 am

Vivec has no purpose for a Breton in High Rock. So to them he is not a god.

Funny, when discussing Zeus I wasn't aware I had to believe in him.

If they lose their purpose they are no longer gods. I am not denying their power or ability by saying they have no purpose to one or the other, simply defining what it is to be a god. Anything one worships can be a god. It has been brought up that Daedra/Aedra are the personification of something and that is what sets them apart say from worshipping money. I don't think that hampers my point. You can worship the sea and give it a personification. The very word itself means to place a personic complex upon something.

This means that if a personification exists, they are gods. Because that's the definition of god. This may not be good enough to be your god, but no one is asking you to worship them. This is why the entire discussion seems so circular. You appear to be looking for a god you're willing to put your faith in.

Again, how are the gods different than real world gods except by the fact that they exist. You made some points earlier that were summarily shot down (denying apotheosis, deification, etc). What would you change about them to make them more like gods?

But they are simply very powerful creatures, nothing more.

One could say the same thing about real world gods, so they're different how?

» Thu Nov 19, 2009 8:45 pm

I think that in the TES world, gods are sort of godlike, and sort of mortal. The Tribunal could be considered mortal; Almalexia and Sotha Sil both died, and in TES 3, you can kill Vivec. Now, on the other hand, I think that the Nine Divines are what most would consider gods. After all, Akatosh came down to Mundus as a giant golden dragon and beat the crap out of Mehrunes Dagon.

I think the book http://www.imperial-library.info/obbooks/gods_worship.shtml states this best.

I haven't thought a huge amount on this, but I'm pretty sure that this is a good explanation lore-wise.

» Thu Nov 19, 2009 8:02 am

They don't? Eschatological revelation; they will when they die.

And you know this for sure? I think the after life in TES is sort of like purgatory, or the Greek version of Hades combined with the whole "Gaia" tree hugger thing.

They don't? I mean, not many Imperials in Morrowind, and the ones there anyway don't all wave the anti-theist flag around do they?

The Imperials don't consider the Tribunal to be gods, this is pretty well known and basic info.

Ok, so that proves that your character doesn't believe there are gods, but that doesn't answer the question. I could worship a flower as a god, but it will never be anything more than a flower, and eventually it will die. Just because the Dunmer don't think the 8 and 1 are gods doesn't mean they aren't, and just because the Empire doesn't follow the tribunal doesn't mean that they are not gods. If there was a concrete criteria for what makes a god this question would never come up, but there is not, so we just do the best we can to try to decide what to believe in and what not to. Imho.

But that is what I am argueing. Relativity. If you worship a flower then yes it does make it a "god" because really it is all relative on what is a god and what isn't.

This seems a decent line of thought, however I don't follow how you come to the conclusion that none of the gods have purpose; unless you mean to say that they don't have purpose for everybody, and therefore nobody. However, the Aedra and Daedra have fundamental purpose to Nirn, the Aedra are part of it and the Daedra are too, just not in the same manner. Time has a purpose for everybody on Nirn, as does the sky, as does destruction; so how is it that the Aedra/Daedra lack purpose? Or how is it that they've lost their purpose?

Well if by purpose you mean a tool, then yes they do have a purpose, but by purpose as in essential for me to survive that I worship them, then no. Daedra/Aedra have their own goals and the followers are simply tools themselves to be used.

Take Lord Hyamentar's sig here. A god of tea would stand for the mental and sensual quibble that causes us to prize a bunch of hot water with plants in it. That would be a universal trait of humans, but some cultures would find it more important than others. Eskimos don't care about tea, but they would still enjoy it for the same reasons given the chance. A god of tea is a being whose identity is equated with the sum of all tea.

What...?

Funny, when discussing Zeus I wasn't aware I had to believe in him.

Who said that? I was just saying it is irrelevant.

This means that if a personification exists, they are gods. Because that's the definition of god. This may not be good enough to be your god, but no one is asking you to worship them. This is why the entire discussion seems so circular. You appear to be looking for a god you're willing to put your faith in.

So simply someone giving something a personification diefies it?

Again, how are the gods different than real world gods except by the fact that they exist. You made some points earlier that were summarily shot down (denying apotheosis, deification, etc). What would you change about them to make them more like gods?

Except by what fact that who exists?

I wasn't shot down, I didn't deny any of those, simply stated that they were relative. I thought you were a big follower of the school of relativity more so concerning ethics and real world religion, but you find some absolute truth in TES?

» Thu Nov 19, 2009 7:08 pm

Who said that? I was just saying it is irrelevant.

No, you were saying that since the Bretons don't see Vivec as a God, then Vivec isn't. I can talk about a Greek god without actually believing in that god. So can you.

So simply someone giving something a personification diefies it?

There's more to it, sure. It was a simplification. A personification of a thing that's worshipped and held sacred is certainly a god as per the dictionary definition. But I've stated http://www.gamesas.com/bgsforums/index.php?s=&showtopic=841263&view=findpost&p=12238391 I find that definition a little inaccurate.

What might be confounding this issue is that in the Christian era, man has rejected the pagan gods because they seem too profane to be sacred. Images of Zeus turning into a goose and [censored] some mortals comes to mind. Then there's the impact of competing philosophies, like Platonism, on our development. So in this philosophical climate, it's not completely unexpected of us to think of poor Zeus and wonder "how could people worship someone like that? He's just a trumped up mortal who's a womaniser to boot." And they think of those qualities that aren't distinctly mortal. Like omnipotence Or omniscience. Or the transcendental. God subject to time? Certainly not. He's better than that. He's outside of it. And so on and so on it goes until god is so remote many people simply can't even connect with him.

More immanent and practical religions do the reverse. The profane's relationship to the sacred make it sacred too, therefore making life meaningful. Or so Eliade argued. But this is really outside the scope of the topic.

Edit: Maybe, just maybe, you do think of gods in the same way I do, and the way Mircea Eliade described, by which I mean belonging to the sacred; a thing a distinctly different thing from the profane. And maybe you feel that the gods of TES don't have this sacred quality. But I'd contest that too, as the sacred is both an important part of the cosmology (Aetherius, Oblivion) and culturally expressed.

Except by what fact that who exists?

Let me rephrase that: "Again, how are [Tamriel's] gods different than real world gods except by the fact that [the Tamrielic gods] exist [in an obvious way]".

I wasn't shot down, I didn't deny any of those, simply stated that they were relative. I thought you were a big follower of the school of relativity more so concerning ethics and real world religion, but you find some absolute truth in TES?

That's a different thing entirely (and a moral skeptic is different to a moral relativist, but that's another discussion). This isn't a topic about religion or ethics, this is a topic about definitions. The meanings of words aren't fixed like objects, but they are fixed by consensus. If I say "house" to you, you would know what I'm talking about. If I say "god" to you, you should also know what I'm talking about. So even when I talk about the god Zeus, you know Zeus is a god because he fits the definition of a god. And you know Oedipus doesn't. All this without believing in the reality of either Zeus or Oedipus. (At least I assume you're not a Pagan revivalist). Hence the comparisons with the real world and hence the definitions which I've pointed out completely match up with gods as described in TES. "God" isn't anything but a label. Saying "there are no gods" means that the gods do not match the definition of a label. Unless you have a different definition of god, which is why I've continually been asking for some criteria.

» Thu Nov 19, 2009 9:44 am

I think the after life in TES is sort of like purgatory, or the Greek version of Hades combined with the whole "Gaia" tree hugger thing.

Not quite purgatory, imagine a giant receptacle of dreaming souls, taking in old ones and rehatching them out as new; granted, that's quite the simplification, but its a start...

The Imperials don't consider the Tribunal to be gods, this is pretty well known and basic info.

They don't:

"Vivec City, named for Vivec, a living god of Morrowind, is the largest settlement on Vvardenfell, and one of the largest cities in the East."

--Caius Cosades

Caius is an Imperial, and I think it's safe to say that he hasn't been converted to the Tribunal Temple...

"The goddess over in the Temple. She's surrounded by her Hands. Tough fighters from what I hear."

--Tienius Delitian

Delitian is the Imperial captain of the Royal Guard in Mournhold, who are actively working against the Temple...

"Sotha Sil is one of the three God-Kings of Morrowind."

--Plitinius Mero, an Imperial Savant

"Almalexia is one of the gods worshipped by the Dunmer in the Tribunal Temple.""

--Effe-Tei, an Argonian mage

Neither followers of the Temple

"They worship three gods known as "the Tribunal""

--1st PGE

"Septim, not eager to fight three Living Gods and also worried about Dagoth Ur's return, agreed to a treaty, as described in the history section of this book."

--3rd PGE

"This is my best attempt at a listing of the pantheons and associated divine spirits of Tamriel's dominant cultures... Vivec (Master of Morrowind): Warrior-poet god of the Dunmer..."

--Varieties of Faith

All three Imperial texts...

"Juilek had never seen Vivec before, but he had heard he was a living god. What came before him was but a man. A powerfully built man, handsome, with an intelligent face, but a man nonetheless. The Prince was pleased: a man he could speak with, but not a god."

--Carlovac Townway, "2920", a historian turned writer

Can they not acknowledge and not worship? Does it affect the Tribunal's godhood either way?

Well if by purpose you mean a tool, then yes they do have a purpose, but by purpose as in essential for me to survive that I worship them, then no. Daedra/Aedra have their own goals and the followers are simply tools themselves to be used.

Not essential for you to survive that you follow them, just essential for you to survive. They're not yet so vain that they're going to bring up the former... But yes, mortals are tools for the Daedra, that makes them less divine???

» Thu Nov 19, 2009 10:37 am

No, you were saying that since the Bretons don't see Vivec as a God, then Vivec isn't. I can talk about a Greek god without actually believing in that god. So can you.

Bretons can talk about Vivec too but they don't bend a knee to him.

What might be confounding this issue is that in the Christian era, man has rejected the pagan gods because they seem too profane to be sacred. Images of Zeus turning into a goose and [censored] some mortals comes to mind. Then there's the impact of competing philosophies, like Platonism, on our development. So in this philosophical climate, it's not completely unexpected of us to think of poor Zeus and wonder "how could people worship someone like that? He's just a trumped up mortal who's a womaniser to boot." And they think of those qualities that aren't distinctly mortal. Like omnipotence Or omniscience. Or the transcendental. God subject to time? Certainly not. He's better than that. He's outside of it. And so on and so on it goes until god is so remote many people simply can't even connect with him.

I wasn't using the criteria of such God. Also your last point can be argued.

More immanent and practical religions do the reverse. The profane's relationship to the sacred make it sacred too, therefore making life meaningful. Or so Eliade argued. But this is really outside the scope of the topic.

It is outside the scope but I enjoy reading it regardless. Surprised someone outside my country has read Mircea Eliade. He says some things I agree with, some I do not as far as I know.

Let me rephrase that: "Again, how are [Tamriel's] gods different than real world gods except by the fact that [the Tamrielic gods] exist [in an obvious way]".

But who said I considered our world's "gods" to be "gods" anymore then the ones in TES?

That's a different thing entirely (and a moral skeptic is different to a moral relativist, but that's another discussion).

Really? One just seems a more cowardly variant then the other, but both end up in the same situation.

This isn't a topic about religion or ethics, this is a topic about definitions. The meanings of words aren't fixed like objects, but they are fixed by consensus. If I say "house" to you, you would know what I'm talking about. If I say "god" to you, you should also know what I'm talking about. So even when I talk about the god Zeus, you know Zeus is a god because he fits the definition of a god. And you know Oedipus doesn't. All this without believing in the reality of either Zeus or Oedipus. (At least I assume you're not a Pagan revivalist). Hence the comparisons with the real world and hence the definitions which I've pointed out completely match up with gods as described in TES. "God" isn't anything but a label. Saying "there are no gods" means that the gods do not match the definition of a label. Unless you have a different definition of god, which is why I've continually been asking for some criteria.

Ahh but here we really get into it my friend. A house has specific measurements you can gauge, weigh and such. How do you measure a god? So the definition of "gods" is also relative. It is only when one has an absolute God that one can no longer apply relativism to it because doing such is only showing your inability to comperehend the infiniate.

But with finite "gods" relativity rushes them like a flooding river, over runs and drowns them into deniability. I refer to Zeus as a "god" because I am looking at it through the lens of someone else's perspective.

We are egocentric creatures, every living thing is and I do not mean this in the bad way, simply our perspective is just that, our own. So my criteria for a "god" (in TES) is perspective, purpose and context. And even those are relative.

The Hoonding is not a god for a Khajiit because of his perspective, what he views as purpose and what context he is in. Though the power (whatever it may be) of the Hoonding can not be denied his role as a diety can based on those three things.

Relativity, the true "god" slayer.

Not quite purgatory, imagine a giant receptacle of dreaming souls, taking in old ones and rehatching them out as new; granted, that's quite the simplification, but its a start...

Which is why I did not discribe purgatory, but it was simply an aspect of it.

They don't:
"Vivec City, named for Vivec, a living god of Morrowind, is the largest settlement on Vvardenfell, and one of the largest cities in the East."--Caius Cosades
Caius is an Imperial, and I think it's safe to say that he hasn't been converted to the Tribunal Temple...
"The goddess over in the Temple. She's surrounded by her Hands. Tough fighters from what I hear."--Tienius Delitian
Delitian is the Imperial captain of the Royal Guard in Mournhold, who are actively working against the Temple...
"Sotha Sil is one of the three God-Kings of Morrowind."--Plitinius Mero, an Imperial Savant
"Almalexia is one of the gods worshipped by the Dunmer in the Tribunal Temple.""--Effe-Tei, an Argonian mage
Neither followers of the Temple
"They worship three gods known as "the Tribunal""--1st PGE
"Septim, not eager to fight three Living Gods and also worried about Dagoth Ur's return, agreed to a treaty, as described in the history section of this book."--3rd PGE
"This is my best attempt at a listing of the pantheons and associated divine spirits of Tamriel's dominant cultures... Vivec (Master of Morrowind): Warrior-poet god of the Dunmer..."--Varieties of Faith
All three Imperial texts...
"Juilek had never seen Vivec before, but he had heard he was a living god. What came before him was but a man. A powerfully built man, handsome, with an intelligent face, but a man nonetheless. The Prince was pleased: a man he could speak with, but not a god."--Carlovac Townway, "2920", a historian turned writer
Can they not acknowledge and not worship? Does it affect the Tribunal's godhood either way?

This would be the same way a Dunmer would refer to the Emperor. You can not deny his rank, status, but he is not the Dunmer's Emperor (pre Imperial rule of Morrowind of course).

Perspective, purpose, context.

Not essential for you to survive that you follow them, just essential for you to survive. They're not yet so vain that they're going to bring up the former... But yes, mortals are tools for the Daedra, that makes them less divine???

But that's simply circumstance. Food is essential that you survive but do you know of any cheeseburger gods?

» Thu Nov 19, 2009 10:48 am

But who said I considered our world's "gods" to be "gods" anymore then the ones in TES?It is only when one has an absolute God that one can no longer apply relativism to it...

:banghead:
Then the entire discussion is moot, if don't consider any examples from our world gods then of course your not going to consider any other examples in our fiction gods. You said before that perfection wasn't your gauge for a god and dismissed my statement that "If your only definition or reference for what it is to be a god is the omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient god, then of course all TES gods are going to fall short" (which is why I've continued this discussion); however it seems you were mistaken, as an absolute god is just that (an I'm not talking about human moral imperfections or any such thing here)... I repeat if an absolute god is your only gauge for godhood, this is all pointless and you should have just said so in the initial post, because no, there are no absolute gods in TES (unless your wanting to get into the "I")...

The Hoonding is not a god for a Khajiit because of his perspective, what he views as purpose and what context he is in.

And yet you not viewing him as a god doesn't change anything concerning his godhood...

Which is why I did not discribe purgatory, but it was simply an aspect of it.

Then your statement was generalized into uselessness, there are alot of aspects of purgatory, if you don't state which one your talking about then there's no use mentioning it at all...

But that's simply circumstance. Food is essential that you survive but do you know of any cheeseburger gods?

Artemis? Dionysus? Demeter???

This would be the same way a Dunmer would refer to the Emperor. You can not deny his rank, status,...

Thank you, I rest my case, goodbye...

» Thu Nov 19, 2009 7:41 am

Then the entire discussion is moot, if don't consider any examples from our world gods then of course your not going to consider any other examples in our fiction gods. You said before that perfection wasn't your gauge for a god and dismissed my statement that "If your only definition or reference for what it is to be a god is the omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient god, then of course all TES gods are going to fall short" (which is why I've continued this discussion); however it seems you were mistaken, as an absolute god is just that (an I'm not talking about human moral imperfections or any such thing here)... I repeat if an absolute god is your only gauge for godhood, this is all pointless and you should have just said so in the initial post, because no, there are no absolute gods in TES (unless your wanting to get into the "I")...

No I did not say that they have to be omni anything. But simply stated the logical conclusion that without something being absolute, then it can only be relative and god-hood is based simply on perspective, purpose and context.

And yet you not viewing him as a god doesn't change anything concerning his godhood...

And "godhood" is relative to perspective purpose and context so while you can not change that Hoonding can do this and that, it doesn't conclude that he must have "godhood" because againt that is relative.

Then your statement was generalized into uselessness, there are alot of aspects of purgatory, if you don't state which one your talking about then there's no use mentioning it at all...

It fell short but I wouldn't say it was useless. Purgatory/Hades/Tree Hugger Gaia for example is different then Jennah.

Artemis? Dionysus? Demeter???

This is a Greco/Roman/Thracian example, not a TES one.

Thank you, I rest my case, goodbye...

If you say so. I think you missed my point, but that's okay it's really splitting hairs for most people.

» Thu Nov 19, 2009 7:01 am

There is no omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent entity in TES, not even an entity with just one of these qualities. By this definition there is no "The God". However there are "some gods" which are more or less powerful entities who might or might not be dependent on worship. Pretty clich? fantasy style btw. until you get into the cosmology, Daedra/Aedra thing etc.

Btw. if mortals are descendants of Aedra, then there are no "non-et'Ada" gods, because mortals are et'Ada as well. (I belong to the camp of dividers, that is those who think et'Ada can be split into many smaller et'Ada)

» Thu Nov 19, 2009 6:11 am

No I did not say that they have to be omni anything. But simply stated the logical conclusion that without something being absolute, then it can only be relative and god-hood is based simply on perspective, purpose and context.

Yes you did, that's what "absolute" means. If the only god that is not relative is the absolute god (that entails the omni-stuff), then the only true god by your understanding would be the absolute god, meaning that they would have to be omni-something, which is not something you'll find in TES, which means that this discussion has been going nowhere from the beginning; your not basing godhood on perspective, purpose and context (which lacks all applicability), your basing it on absoluteness (omni-ness)...

It fell short but I wouldn't say it was useless. Purgatory/Hades/Tree Hugger Gaia for example is different then Jennah.

Ok then, what applicability does that have to the dreamsleeve?

This is a Greco/Roman/Thracian example, not a TES one.

And? They work just as well to make the point, but very well; either way it is not "simply circumstance" that you rely upon the Aedra/Daedra for your survival/everyday living even if you are their tool...

If you say so. I think you missed my point, but that's okay it's really splitting hairs for most people.

If the Dunmer cannot deny the status of the Emperor, how can the Imperials deny the status of the Tribunal? Why is it that the Imperials call them gods and not "really powerful beings" in even their most heavily propaganda-filled material...

» Thu Nov 19, 2009 10:55 am

No I did not say that they have to be omni anything. But simply stated the logical conclusion that without something being absolute, then it can only be relative and god-hood is based simply on perspective, purpose and context.

Although I agree that near the line between mortality and godhood things can get confusing, but relative does not mean real. Yes, the godhood is relative, but there are some guidelines. Are the Tribunal gods and Davith Fyr not? Difficult to say. Are the Daedra gods and let's say Fargoth not. I'd say a definate yes. I could use some music examples. What's influential is relative, but Elvis Presley is definately extremely influential, while Pat Boone is not.

And "godhood" is relative to perspective purpose and context so while you can not change that Hoonding can do this and that, it doesn't conclude that he must have "godhood" because againt that is relative.

But everyone recognizes his godhood, they just do not worship him. They all except that Hoonding is the Yakodan god, but they do not accept him as their god.

It fell short but I wouldn't say it was useless. Purgatory/Hades/Tree Hugger Gaia for example is different then Jennah.
This is a Greco/Roman/Thracian example, not a TES one.

Zeht, and arguably Y'ffre and Zenithar. They are often the gods that put food on the table. This god has always been one of the most important throughout history.

If you say so. I think you missed my point, but that's okay it's really splitting hairs for most people.

I think we just don't really understand what you are trying to say. If you say that the gods are relative, and that not all people have to worship them, that is true. If you are trying to deny the divinty of the gods, that is going to be false.

» Thu Nov 19, 2009 6:36 pm

But who said I considered our world's "gods" to be "gods" anymore then the ones in TES?

If you did that, then whole sections of libraries would be incomprehensible to you. Picking up books like "The Complete Gods of Ancient Egypt" or "A Dictionary of Gods and Goddesses" or "American Gods" you'd be baffled by the terminology. You clearly aren't baffled when I say Zeus is a god, because he's accepted within the historical definition of a god, which is a definition that exists irrespective of belief.

Ahh but here we really get into it my friend. A house has specific measurements you can gauge, weigh and such. How do you measure a god? So the definition of "gods" is also relative.

This is a non-sequitur. What are the measurements that make up the definition of a house? Is there a certain size where houses stop becoming houses and become palaces?

It is only when one has an absolute God that one can no longer apply relativism to it because doing such is only showing your inability to comperehend the infiniate.

Okay, so clearly you're succumbing to what I said earlier. That western philosophy has attempted to make a god that has no mortal qualities. You know, despite what the rest of the world considers a god.

I refer to Zeus as a "god" because I am looking at it through the lens of someone else's perspective. We are egocentric creatures, every living thing is and I do not mean this in the bad way, simply our perspective is just that, our own. So my criteria for a "god" (in TES) is perspective, purpose and context. And even those are relative.

If that's the case, then why the topic? Clearly "there are no gods" should actually read "The gods do not fit my definition of god and therefore I don't believe in their godhood." And seeing as the Cyrodiils have flirted with montheism, they'd probably reject your god too if they met you. So how is this topic even intelligible?

» Thu Nov 19, 2009 6:20 pm

Yes you did, that's what "absolute" means. If the only god that is not relative is the absolute god (that entails the omni-stuff), then the only true god by your understanding would be the absolute god, meaning that they would have to be omni-something, which is not something you'll find in TES, which means that this discussion has been going nowhere from the beginning; your not basing godhood on perspective, purpose and context (which lacks all applicability), your basing it on absoluteness (omni-ness)...

It's not a direct cause and affect, the absolute quality that is. It is sort of like me hiring a contractor to sell you a house. If he violates the contract you can not sue me, you sue him since I can claim that the contractor acted outside of his duty.

In the same way an unabsolute being is a casualty to relativity there for you would need an absolute being to be immune to that relativity, yet even though the absolute factor is the root of the whole "tree" it isn't the factor that acts directly to it.

Kind of weird to mix in business law with fantasy theology but i'm sure you'll get by.

Ok then, what applicability does that have to the dreamsleeve?

Just a description of how I see it.

And? They work just as well to make the point, but very well; either way it is not "simply circumstance" that you rely upon the Aedra/Daedra for your survival/everyday living even if you are their tool...

But many things are essential that aren't considered gods. This isn't an absolute formula and still a victim of relativity.

If the Dunmer cannot deny the status of the Emperor, how can the Imperials deny the status of the Tribunal? Why is it that the Imperials call them gods and not "really powerful beings" in even their most heavily propaganda-filled material...

Perhaps I should have explained better. They can not deny the Emperor can send an army to kill them, they can not deny that others bend their knee to him and serve him, but they can deny that he rules over them in whatever miniscule way.

Although I agree that near the line between mortality and godhood things can get confusing, but relative does not mean real. Yes, the godhood is relative, but there are some guidelines. Are the Tribunal gods and Davith Fyr not? Difficult to say. Are the Daedra gods and let's say Fargoth not. I'd say a definate yes. I could use some music examples. What's influential is relative, but Elvis Presley is definately extremely influential, while Pat Boone is not.

If it is relative it means we can put up an equation up on the chalk board in which there are no gods. Even though that is a very limited perspective, the mear possibility of it nullifies an "official" god-hood that goes beyond anything more then purpose, perspective and context.

But everyone recognizes his godhood, they just do not worship him. They all except that Hoonding is the Yakodan god, but they do not accept him as their god.

I wasn't aware of that and have yet to find a reason that everyone does recognizes Hoonding's godhood.

» Thu Nov 19, 2009 7:29 am

Zeht, and arguably Y'ffre and Zenithar. They are often the gods that put food on the table. This god has always been one of the most important throughout history.

Put food on the table? Can you really say they do that or simply using a popular Judeo-Christian "saying"?

I think we just don't really understand what you are trying to say. If you say that the gods are relative, and that not all people have to worship them, that is true. If you are trying to deny the divinty of the gods, that is going to be false.

And what is divinity? It is relative because it is based on purpose, perspective and context.

If you did that, then whole sections of libraries would be incomprehensible to you. Picking up books like "The Complete Gods of Ancient Egypt" or "A Dictionary of Gods and Goddesses" or "American Gods" you'd be baffled by the terminology. You clearly aren't baffled when I say Zeus is a god, because he's accepted within the historical definition of a god, which is a definition that exists irrespective of belief.

I already explained that I can look at perspectives for the sake of understanding that certain perspective further.

This is a non-sequitur. What are the measurements that make up the definition of a house? Is there a certain size where houses stop becoming houses and become palaces?

But you agree that there ARE measurements right?

Okay, so clearly you're succumbing to what I said earlier. That western philosophy has attempted to make a god that has no mortal qualities. You know, despite what the rest of the world considers a god.

No mortal qualities? That can be argued.

I don't see your point with this comment.

If that's the case, then why the topic? Clearly "there are no gods" should actually read "The gods do not fit my definition of god and therefore I don't believe in their godhood." And seeing as the Cyrodiils have flirted with montheism, they'd probably reject your god too if they met you. So how is this topic even intelligible?

It is a bit of a dramatic title sort of like "God is Dead" even though that makes no theological sense what so ever. The same way There are no gods is simply my way of titling how relativity gives us an equation in which the perspective, purpose, and context renders one godless.

How is it even intelligible? Well it's a bit unfair for me to take such a topic to a forum where people don't exactly specialize in this level of consideration and while many have made an admiral attempt to argue one way or another it seems most get bogged down in semantics. Which isn't a bad thing at all, we all learn in a sense, but it does tend to slow down the general flow of the conversation. I don't mean that as an insult, simply here there are some things that are simply accepted and you have four walls, really six surfaces and you can bounce your ball within those boundaries. I'm just bouncing ball outside.

» Thu Nov 19, 2009 8:26 am

It's not a direct cause and affect, the absolute quality that is. It is sort of like me hiring a contractor to sell you a house. If he violates the contract you can not sue me, you sue him since I can claim that the contractor acted outside of his duty.

In the same way an unabsolute being is a casualty to relativity there for you would need an absolute being to be immune to that relativity, yet even though the absolute factor is the root of the whole "tree" it isn't the factor that acts directly to it.

Kind of weird to mix in business law with fantasy theology but i'm sure you'll get by.

You can word it anyway you like but it still comes down to that your criteria for a god is that to be a true god (not relative) that it must be an absolute god. Following that line of thought, there is no point in discussing further as its already established that there are no gods like that in TES thereby leaving no room for argument...

Perhaps I should have explained better. They can not deny the Emperor can send an army to kill them, they can not deny that others bend their knee to him and serve him, but they can deny that he rules over them in whatever miniscule way.

Of course they can deny that he rules over them, you referenced it being in the time before the Emperor ruled over them. They can't deny that he's an Emperor, and I'd pose that it transfers oppositely as well...

And what is divinity? It is relative because it is based on purpose, perspective and context.

You keep saying that but it gets the discussion nowhere. Divinity to you is based on that, who's to say that divinity in general is...

No mortal qualities? That can be argued.

I don't see your point with this comment.

I'd assume it relates to the same lines as my statement concerning your criteria being the absolute god.

» Thu Nov 19, 2009 6:37 pm

But you agree that there ARE measurements right?

Concrete measurements? For the definition of a house? Absolutely not. Can you give them? And if one measurement is a fraction of an inch over, is it still a house?

No mortal qualities? That can be argued.

Aren't you arguing that unless it doesn't even vaguely human qualities then it isn't a god? An "absolute god". What if I say I reject that? My god's not absolute. Neither are many other gods. Say I'm a polytheist, so I got numbers on my side. Where does that leave us?

It is a bit of a dramatic title sort of like "God is Dead" even though that makes no theological sense what so ever. The same way There are no gods is simply my way of titling how relativity gives us an equation in which the perspective, purpose, and context renders one godless.

This seems mainly about how you don't have a definition everyone else follows. I don't think we should reconcile our understanding of the terminology to meet an unreasonable expectation.

» Thu Nov 19, 2009 10:24 am

You can word it anyway you like but it still comes down to that your criteria for a god is that to be a true god (not relative) that it must be an absolute god. Following that line of thought, there is no point in discussing further as its already established that there are no gods like that in TES thereby leaving no room for argument...

If you need to simplify it like that then yea you can see it that way, but you won't get anywhere. You've already said it yourself that you've hit a wall, no room for arguement. Which is why I suggest you don't see it like that.

Your call.

Of course they can deny that he rules over them, you referenced it being in the time before the Emperor ruled over them. They can't deny that he's an Emperor, and I'd pose that it transfers oppositely as well...

They can't deny that others see him as Emperor, but from their perspective if they do not accept his rulership they don't have to accept it. No one can ever force you to do anything, they do only what you let them do to you, especially relative things.

You keep saying that but it gets the discussion nowhere. Divinity to you is based on that, who's to say that divinity in general is...

...relative. It is relative which is why i've come to the conclusion that I have.

I'd assume it relates to the same lines as my statement concerning your criteria being the absolute god.

You said that the western God has no mortal qualities. I just said it can be argued other wise, which we don't do here since it's not allowed.

Concrete measurements? For the definition of a house? Absolutely not. Can you give them? And if one measurement is a fraction of an inch over, is it still a house?

I'm not a carpenter but there are sets of equations which end up giving you a house. They are many and I have nor the time or inclination to list them all. But to deny this is just silly.

Aren't you arguing that unless it doesn't even vaguely human qualities then it isn't a god? An "absolute god". What if I say I reject that? My god's not absolute. Neither are many other gods. Say I'm a polytheist, so I got numbers on my side. Where does that leave us?

No I am not argueing that.

Where does it leave you? Confused id' say.

This seems mainly about how you don't have a definition everyone else follows. I don't think we should reconcile our understanding of the terminology to meet an unreasonable expectation.

It isn't mainly about that, it is mainly about how the definition that everyone else follows is lazy.

It isn't an unreasonable expectation, it either is or isn't.