Jasnah's religion

[Pathfinder]

@agrabes and @Debarra

I think there is a fundamental problem with the arguments you both are making. If you would like to discuss atheism versus theism, that is an entirely different thread on an entirely different forum. This thread is asking how would Jasnah, the atheist, respond to the shards. Approaching this question from the perspective of a theist is faulty. It assumes things that for an atheist are simply not true. Need a definition of god? Why? It does not exist. By defining it, it would exist. You could say define mxhdprgtl. And Jasnah would say why? It does not exist. You made it up. So to requesting she define god. God does not exist for her, so why would there be a definition for an entity? Define light. Well light is blah blah blah. It exists. For an atheist, god does not exist. You can have beings with power. Great. Congrats. That still changes nothing. Say to a vegan to define the meat they would eat, and they would say, I don't eat meat. How can you say you cannot define meat you would eat? Because I don't eat meat!

I think that is the disconnect. Trying to rationalize atheism from the perspective of a theist. There is no pursuit of god. Atheism is not "I just have not found the right god yet". God does not exist. That is the perspective of an atheist. I mean seriously, everything I have stated, Jasnah has stated in the book. If you want to argue against atheism, that is an entirely different discussion. The question is, Jasnah, the atheist, meets the shards, what happens to her atheism? And the answer has been written across the books. She is still an atheist. The only thing the books definitively proved is Vorinism as a religion is false. It teaches God exists, he is all powerful, all good, and his name is the Almighty. The reality is Honor is not all powerful. Not all good. And he is dead. Jasnah has spoken to Ivory. Jasnah has spoken to Dalinar at length. It did not change anything. At this point I will just have to quote each and every instance backing up what I have said repeatedly across this entire thread. 

 

Way of Kings page 458

“Is it hard for you, Jasnah? Painful, I mean?”

“Atheism is not a disease, Your Majesty,” Jasnah said dryly. “It’s not as if I’ve caught a foot rash.”

“Of course not, of course not. But … er, isn’t it difficult, having nothing in which to believe?” Shallan leaned forward, still sketching, but keeping her attention on the conversation. Shallan had assumed that training under a heretic would be a little more exciting. She and Kabsal—the witty ardent whom she’d met on her first day in Kharbranth—had chatted several times now about Jasnah’s faith. However, around Jasnah herself, the topic almost never came up. When it did, Jasnah usually changed it. Today, however, she did not. Perhaps she sensed the sincerity in the king’s question.

“I wouldn’t say that I have nothing to believe in, Your Majesty. Actually, I have much to believe in. My brother and my uncle, my own abilities. The things I was taught by my parents.”

“But, what is right and wrong, you’ve … Well, you’ve discarded that.”

“Just because I do not accept the teachings of the devotaries does not mean I’ve discarded a belief in right and wrong.”

“But the Almighty determines what is right!”

“Must someone, some unseen thing, declare what is right for it to be right? I believe that my own morality—which answers only to my heart—is more sure and true than the morality of those who do right only because they fear retribution.”

“But that is the soul of law,” the king said, sounding confused. “If there is no punishment, there can be only chaos.”

“If there were no law, some men would do as they wish, yes,” Jasnah said. “But isn’t it remarkable that, given the chance for personal gain at the cost of others, so many people choose what is right?”

“Because they fear the Almighty.”

“No,” Jasnah said. “I think something innate in us understands that seeking the good of society is usually best for the individual as well. Humankind is noble, when we give it the chance to be. That nobility is something that exists independent of any god’s decree.”

“I just don’t see how anything could be outside God’s decrees.” The king shook his head, bemused. “Brightness Jasnah, I don’t mean to argue, but isn’t the very definition of the Almighty that all things exist because of him?”

“If you add one and one, that makes two, does it not?”

“Well, yes.”

“No god needs declare it so for it to be true,” Jasnah said. “So, could we not say that mathematics exists outside the Almighty, independent of him?”

“Perhaps.”

“Well,” Jasnah said, “I simply claim that morality and human will are independent of him too.”

“If you say that,” the king said, chuckling, “then you’ve removed all purpose for the Almighty’s existence!”

“Indeed.”

“Well,” Taravangian said, “I must say that you make your points quite effectively. I don’t accept them, though.”

“My intention is not to convert, Your Majesty,” Jasnah said. “I am content keeping my beliefs to myself, something most of my colleagues in the devotaries have difficulty doing.

 

As I said Jasnah has no need of a "god". It is useless to her. There is no need to think about it. Worship it. Try to make it happy. A being you call god can exist or not, that does not mean she will call it god. You can come up with every single name in the book, and it will still not be god, because "god" does not exist. Let Taravangian have his god. That does not mean that god is hers, nor that she calls it god. 

 

Way of Kings page 458 (same section)

“Our hearts, Brightness. I believe because I feel something, a closeness to the Almighty, a peace that comes when I live my faith.”

“The mind is capable of projecting expected emotional responses.”

“But didn’t you yourself argue that the way we act—the way we feel about right and wrong—was a defining attribute of our humanity? You used our innate morality to prove your point. So how can you discard my feelings?”

“Discard them? No. Regard them with skepticism? Perhaps. Your feelings, Shallan—however powerful—are your own. Not mine. And what I feel is that spending my life trying to earn the favor of an unseen, unknown, and unknowable being who watches me from the sky is an exercise in sheer futility.” She pointed at Shallan with her pen. “But your rhetorical method is improving. We’ll make a scholar of you yet.”

 

Shallan can feel as she does. She can in her heart feel there is god. That is great for her. Congrats. Have fun with that. Jasnah does not. There is no compunction, need nor desire for Jasnah to earn, locate, or appease some entity. She lives her life. Does not matter if that entity that someone else calls god shows up. It is still not god to Jasnah, because god to Jasnah does not exist. 

 

Way of Kings page 530

"The older we grow, the more likely we are to reject the simple answers. Unless someone gets in our way and demands they be accepted regardless.” Jasnah’s eyes narrowed. “You wonder why I reject the devotaries.”

“I do.”

“Most of them seek to stop the questions.”

 

Crystal clear. Religion for Jasnah stops questions. Why does the sun shine? God did that. But If I use a telescope, and scientific research, I find out that the sun is a star. It radiates light, that travels through space. The sky is blue due to how that light impacts the ozone. Well god made it that way. But I can research and find out how the sun and earth was formed. How the ozone came to be. Why those particular chemicals in the atmosphere result in the light making the sky blue. Well god made it that way. So is that what god is? The god of the gaps? Anything we do not know, god did it? Well if everything god did so far, has a reason outside of god once it is discovered, then I will continue to research and find answers. Not just "god did it"

 

Way of Kings page 635

“Don’t you see?” he said. “She’s trying to prove that the Voidbringers weren’t real. She wants to demonstrate that this was all a fabrication of the Radiants.” He stepped forward and turned to face her, the lantern light rebounding from the books to either side, making his face pale. “She wants to prove once and for all that the devotaries—and Vorinism—are a gigantic fraud. That’s what this is all about.”

“Maybe,” Shallan said thoughtfully. It did seem to fit. What better goal for an avowed heretic? Undermining foolish beliefs and disproving religion? It explained why Jasnah would study something as seemingly inconsequential as the Voidbringers. Find the right evidence in the historical records, and Jasnah might well be able to prove herself right.

 

Kabsal assumes Jasnah is trying to prove the Voidbringers are not real to prove Vorinism is false. This is ultimately laughable because:

1. She is not doing so

2. Vorinism is false, and proven all on its own

The perspective of the theist assumes there is a pursuit of god that has not been attained yet. That it is a continual quest where reasons are found for the non-existence till that non-existence is then invalidated. That is a theist perspective. Theists seek god. Dalinar believed in the Almighty. When he found out the Almighty is dead, he sought what he felt god was. He found god in that golden light. There is no more proof that that golden light is any different than Honor, Odium, and so on. Yet for Dalinar he believes. Because for Dalinar, deep down he believes god exists. So he seeks that god. Jasnah does not, so she seeks nothing. It does not exist, so what is she seeking?

 

Way of Kings page 679

“I hadn’t thought to find ardents who were willing to question their own beliefs.”

Jasnah raised an eyebrow. “You will find wise men in any religion, Shallan, and good men in every nation. Those who truly seek wisdom are those who will acknowledge the virtue in their adversaries and who will learn from those who disabuse them of error. All others—heretic, Vorin, Ysperist, or Maakian—are equally closed-minded.”

She took her hand from the book, moving as if to stand up. “He’s wrong,” Shallan said suddenly, realizing something. Jasnah turned to her. “Kabsal,” Shallan said, blushing. “He says you’re researching the Voidbringers because you want to prove that Vorinism is false.”

Jasnah sniffed in derision. “I would not dedicate four years of my life to such an empty pursuit. It’s idiocy to try to prove a negative. Let the Vorin believe as they wish—the wise among them will find goodness and solace in their faith; the fools would be fools no matter what they believed.”

 

Again right from Jasnah's lips. Let the Vorin have their god and have their goodness and solace. That is not for her. The Almighty is not her god. Because she has no god. She cannot have something if for her it does not exist. It does not matter if the Almighty showed up and said hi to her and Shallan. She would say "That is great for you Shallan. Enjoy time with your god". And that is that. The Almighty is not her God. God does not exist. 

 

Words of Radiance page 38

 “Luck, Brightness!” one of the sailors said. “It is a good omen for your trip, don’t you think?”

“I shall take any fortune provided me, Nanhel Eltorv,” she said. “Thank you for the seat.” The sailor bowed awkwardly before retreating.

“You think they’re superstitious fools,” Shallan said softly, watching the sailor leave.

“From what I have observed,” Jasnah said, “these sailors are men who have found a purpose in life and now take simple pleasure in it.” Jasnah looked at the next drawing. “Many people make far less out of life. Captain Tozbek runs a good crew. You were wise in bringing him to my attention.”

Shallan smiled. “You didn’t answer my question.”

“You didn’t ask a question,”

 

Again, The sailors religion or superstition is good for them. It brings them solace. It does nothing for Jasnah. Let them have their religion. If the sailing trip went well, then great. It does not change Jasnah's convictions. The sailors would believe it went well because of their beliefs. Jasnah would believe it just went well. Simple

 

Words of Radiance page 38

“They’re living ideas.” Jasnah spun on her. “What?” Shallan said, jumping. “Am I wrong?”

“No,” Jasnah said. “You’re right.” The woman narrowed her eyes. “By my best guess, spren are elements of the Cognitive Realm that have leaked into the physical world. They’re concepts that have gained a fragment of sentience, perhaps because of human intervention. “Think of a man who gets angry often. Think of how his friends and family might start referring to that anger as a beast, as a thing that possesses him, as something external to him. Humans personify. We speak of the wind as if it has a will of its own. “Spren are those ideas—the ideas of collective human experience—somehow come alive. Shadesmar is where that first happens, and it is their place. Though we created it, they shaped it. They live there; they rule there, within their own cities.”

“Cities?”

“Yes,” Jasnah said, looking back out over the ocean. She seemed troubled. “Spren are wild in their variety. Some are as clever as humans and create cities. Others are like fish and simply swim in the currents.”

 

This is what spren are. They are no more gods to Jasnah than anything else. Horneaters revere such things. Good for them. That does not instill any compunction in Jasnah to do so.  

 

Words of Radiance page 69

The Stormfather, of course, is a strange offshoot of this, his theoretical nature changing depending on which era of Vorinism is doing the talking. . . .” She trailed off. Shallan blushed, realizing she’d looked away and had begun tracing a glyphward on her blanket against the evil in Jasnah’s words. “That was a tangent,” Jasnah said. “I apologize.”

“You’re so sure he isn’t real,” Shallan said. “The Almighty.”

“I have no more proof of him than I do of the Thaylen Passions, Nu Ralik of the Purelake, or any other religion.”

“And the Heralds? You don’t think they existed?”

“I don’t know,” Jasnah said. “There are many things in this world that I don’t understand. For example, there is some slight proof that both the Stormfather and the Almighty are real creatures—simply powerful spren, such as the Nightwatcher.”

“Then he would be real.”

“I never claimed he was not,” Jasnah said. “I merely claimed that I do not accept him as God, nor do I feel any inclination to worship him.

 

Yet again. People can call the heralds god. Thaylens can believe the passions. Purelakers can worship Nu Ralik. Or any other religion. The beings they worship can either show up individually, all together, or not at all and it changed nothing. They are not god to Jasnah, because god does not exist. 

 

Oathbringer page 399

“You have given the world a grand gift. A man can be brave in facing down a hundred enemies, but coming into these—and recording them rather than hiding them—was bravery on an entirely different level.”

“It was mere stubbornness. I refused to believe I was mad.”

“Then I bless your stubbornness, Uncle.” Jasnah pursed her lips in thought, then continued more softly. “I’m worried about you, Uncle. What people are saying.”

“You mean my heresy?” Dalinar said.

“I’m less worried about the heresy itself, and more how you’re dealing with the backlash.” Ahead of them, Navani had somehow bullied the Radiant into letting her look at the fabrial. The day was stretching toward late afternoon, the canyon falling into shadow. But this vision was a long one, and he was content to wait upon Navani. He settled down on a rock.

“I don’t deny God, Jasnah,” he said. “I simply believe that the being we call the Almighty was never actually God.”

“Which is the wise decision to make, considering the accounts of your visions.” Jasnah settled down beside him.

“You must be happy to hear me say that,” he said.

“I’m happy to have someone to talk to, and I’m certainly happy to see you on a journey of discovery. But am I happy to see you in pain? Am I happy to see you forced to abandon something you held dear?” She shook her head. “I don’t mind people believing what works for them, Uncle. That’s something nobody ever seems to understand—I have no stake in their beliefs. I don’t need company to be confident.”

“How do you suffer it, Jasnah?” Dalinar said. “The things people say about you? I see the lies in their eyes before they speak. Or they will tell me, with utter sincerity, things I have reportedly said—even though I deny them. They refuse my own word against the rumors about me!”

Jasnah stared out across the canyon. More men were gathering at the other end, a weak, beleaguered group who were only now discovering they were the victors in this contest. A large column of smoke rose in the distance, though he couldn’t see the source. “I wish I had answers, Uncle,” Jasnah said softly. “Fighting makes you strong, but also callous. I worry I have learned too much of the latter and not enough of the former. But I can give you a warning.” He looked toward her, raising his eyebrows. “They will try,” Jasnah said, “to define you by something you are not. Don’t let them. I can be a scholar, a woman, a historian, a Radiant. People will still try to classify me by the thing that makes me an outsider. They want, ironically, the thing I don’t do or believe to be the prime marker of my identity. I have always rejected that, and will continue to do so.” She reached over and put her freehand on his arm. “You are not a heretic, Dalinar Kholin. You are a king, a Radiant, and a father. You are a man with complicated beliefs, who does not accept everything you are told. You decide how you are defined. Don’t surrender that to them. They will gleefully take the chance to define you, if you allow it.”

 

I mean, do I really have to explain this? I have been repeating it constantly. There is no pursuit of god for Jasnah. She does not need others to be confident that god does not exist. Jasnah has read Dalinar's visions. Honor is dead. Honor is Tanavast is the Almighty. Vorinism is false. Does that mean she stops those that believe in Vorinism from worshiping Vorinism? No! Let them find what comfort they wish where they wish it so long as they do not hurt others because of it. Dalinar is the perspective you both are taking. That if the Almighty is not god, then there must be god out there. He just has not found it yet. So for Dalinar the golden light is god. That light could be no different than Honor, Cultivation, or Odium. It could be more powerful than them. It could exist or not exist. That still does not mean it is god to Jasnah. Because god does not exist. So if Jasnah were to find out honor was dead (which she did because she read the visions), it changes nothing regarding her atheism. Almighty the all powerful was not god, so why would almighty the fallible and dead be god?

 

Oathbringer page 520

For over a decade, she’d dreamed of uniting the best minds of the kingdom in a coordinated effort. She’d been ignored; all anyone had wanted to discuss was her lack of belief in their god.

 

Jasnah laments that when she wants to unite the best minds of the Kingdom to prevent a desolation, all they seemed to care about was her non-belief in their god. Again, she is not pursuing some definition of a deity. God does not exist. Why search for something that does not exist? It is incredibly frustrating for her. She does not believe. Can't people just accept that and move on so they can focus on the desolations? Worship how you wish, she does not care. 

 

Oathbringer page 520

“We need to discuss your uncle. The rift between our houses serves nobody. I wish to bridge that chasm, and Dalinar listens to you. Please, Jasnah. You can steer him properly.”

“My uncle knows his own mind on these matters, and doesn’t require me to ‘steer’ him.”

“As if you haven’t been doing so already, Jasnah. Everyone can see that he has started to share your religious beliefs.”

“Which would be incredible, since I don’t have religious beliefs.”

 

See? This is Amaram approaching Jasnah from the perspective of a theist. But Jasnah is an atheist. She has no beliefs. God does not exist. So how is she convincing anyone to share her beliefs? She does not have any. 

 

I think that is all the main ones. There may be more. But in summation, I think the logic of @agrabes and @Debarra in discussing Jasnah as an atheist is faulty. We are asking what Jasnah, as an atheist, would do in view of these entities. So to answer that question, you must approach the question as an atheist. 

If you approach it as a theist, you get Dalinar. For Dalinar, if this is not god, then what is god? That golden light feels right. It feels like what I think god is. So the golden light is god. 

For Jasnah, if you approach it as an atheist, and you show something that is not god. She goes ok. It isn't god. God doesn't exist, so what is revolutionary about that? All you did was prove that this god is not god. This god was not god to Jasnah when other people thought it was god. It is still not god now that the people that thought it was god, no longer think it is god. 

 

 

edit: ok here is an idea. Maybe if I break it down for you both this way

 

1. Assertion: God does not exist

2. Vorinism states that: Almighty exists. The Almighty is all powerful. He is all knowing. He is eternal. The Almighty is God. He will hear you if you burn glyphs in prayer

3. Jasnah: God does not exist. So the Almighty cannot be God. The Almighty can show up, be all powerful, all knowing, and eternal, and that entity is still not God. Because god does not exist. 

4. It is revealed that the Almighty is Honor. Honor is not all powerful. He is not all knowing. He is not eternal. And since he is dead, he is not hearing your glyph prayers. 

5. All this has proven is that those that believed the Almighty is all powerful, all knowing, and eternal is false. He is none of those things. 

6. The people that believed Vorinism can then either choose to seek god in another manner (alter their vorin beliefs so they still stand as true for themselves, or seek an entirely new religion), or become an atheist and believe there is no god. 

7. Either way, Jasnah is still an atheist. Nothing changed. God does not exist. The Almighty's stature in his followers view changing, does not affect Jasnah. It affects the followers of Vorinism because their belief structure is false, but not Jasnah. The Almighty was never god to Jasnah regardless its stature to those that worship it. 

Edited January 6, 2020 by Pathfinder

[agrabes]

@Pathfinder  This will be my last post on this topic.  I am not approaching this argument from the perspective of a theist, I'm approaching it as someone familiar with the proper way to make arguments about whether or not a god exists.  In your argument to disprove the existence of a god, you are starting with the assumption that god does not exist.  This is a completely invalid way to look at this topic.  Equally invalid is for a theist to start their argument in favor of the existence of god with the assumption that god does exist.  In the vegan example you keep going back to, we are not asking a veganwhat kind of meat they might be tempted to eat.  We are asking the vegan the question "What do you consider to be meat and why did you decide not to eat it?"

If you want to have a debate, you have to start with the assumption that it is equally possible for both positions to be true and the burden is on you to prove that your position is correct and the other position is incorrect.  You generally do not do this - you tend to start your argument with the assumption that your position is correct and then use that assumption to prove the other position is incorrect.  For example, look at item 3 from your list - it's completely flawed because it starts with the assumption that god does not exist and uses that assumption to prove that Honor is not god.  In particular, look at the first and last sentence.  You are saying "God does not exist because God does not exist."  That is circular logic.  To use the idea that god does not exist as a basis for argument, you have to prove that it is correct which you have not.

We know that Jasnah believes that god does not exist.  In the same way, we know that Dalinar believes god does exist.  It's not the topic of this thread, but it's equally valid to ask him why he believes god does exist.  If you are trying to discuss the point of whether or not god exists, no one gets to start from the position that their belief is already right.

Jasnah is a smart person who makes decisions based on logic.  She evaluated many, many religions and philosophies and made the conscious choice to be an atheist.  She has almost certainly used logic to decide whether or not she believes god exists.  We are trying to understand the logic she used to make that decision and how she applies it to the godlike beings she encounters.  I believe that Jasnah's logic is something like this:

1) If there is a god, it must have X properties.

2a) I have logically considered whether a being with X properties can logically exist and have concluded it is not possible.

2b) I have also done extensive research into this topic and have not found evidence of a being that has X properties.

3) Therefore, god does not exist.

 

We want to know what "X" is for Jasnah.  You aren't willing to go there and I don't want to push you to go somewhere you don't want to go, this is a topic that can be pretty personal.  For me personally, I took a few philosophy classes in college so it is interesting to me to examine these issues and my own beliefs.  To truly talk about these issues, you have to question things you believe as fundamentally true (the existence of god, most people fundamentally believe god exists or doesn't as a fundamental truth).  But it's not for everyone.

[Chiberty]

On 1/3/2020 at 0:42 PM, Debarra said:

But then my question still remains, what is God then? If a being like a shard that literally is capable of creating entire planets, can see the future, is connected to all things is not considered a god then what is? What is Jasnah looking for?

She seems to be defining God as one she considers worthy of determining her morality and deserves to be worshipped. 

[Pathfinder]

20 hours ago, agrabes said:

@Pathfinder  This will be my last post on this topic.  I am not approaching this argument from the perspective of a theist, I'm approaching it as someone familiar with the proper way to make arguments about whether or not a god exists.  In your argument to disprove the existence of a god, you are starting with the assumption that god does not exist. 

When did I ever say my argument was to disprove the existence of god? When did Jasnah ever say her argument was to disprove the existence of god? This thread is what would Jasnah, the atheist do if she found out about the Shards. Surprise! It already happened! She already talked to Dalinar! Honor is a shard and is dead. She knows about spren! Guess what? She is still an atheist! I have quoted her at length as to why she is still an atheist

She does not believe god exists. So it does not matter if what someone else calls a god is monotheistic, polytheistic, a feeling, the sky, an animal. Call whatever you want god, and that is great for you, but for Jasnah god does not exist. You can define light. If you say god made light. Then Jasnah researched and proved light was such and such process, then does god no longer exist? Or do you say well god made the process that is light. Well if Jasnah then researches and proves how the process that light is came about, then does god no longer exist? Or do you say god is behind that? Is god nothing more than what is not known yet? For an atheist that is not the case. God does not exist. There is always room for questions. There is always room for a theory to be proven wrong. There is always more information. More learning. 

Quote

This is a completely invalid way to look at this topic.  Equally invalid is for a theist to start their argument in favor of the existence of god with the assumption that god does exist.  In the vegan example you keep going back to, we are not asking a veganwhat kind of meat they might be tempted to eat.  We are asking the vegan the question "What do you consider to be meat and why did you decide not to eat it?"

But the assertion of the vegan is not what it considers or does not consider meat. The assertion of the vegan is that it does not eat meat. So you are asking the vegan to define meat he or she would eat. By asking an atheist to define god, is asking an atheist to assert they believe a god exists. An atheist believes god does not exist. So why would there by a definition for it? As I have said already, it would be the equivalency of you asking someone on the street to define mdopgknat. There is no definition, because it does not exist!

Quote

If you want to have a debate, you have to start with the assumption that it is equally possible for both positions to be true and the burden is on you to prove that your position is correct and the other position is incorrect.  You generally do not do this - you tend to start your argument with the assumption that your position is correct and then use that assumption to prove the other position is incorrect.  For example, look at item 3 from your list - it's completely flawed because it starts with the assumption that god does not exist and uses that assumption to prove that Honor is not god.  In particular, look at the first and last sentence.  You are saying "God does not exist because God does not exist."  That is circular logic.  To use the idea that god does not exist as a basis for argument, you have to prove that it is correct which you have not.

That is why I am saying you and @Debarra 's logic is flawed. You both are trying to debate the validity of atheism versus theism. That is not the question here. You want to discuss whether you think atheism is right or not? Sure! Lets go to general discussion and talk there! Here the query is how would Jasnah, the atheist, deal with the shards existence. I have quoted her word for word on numerous occasions. You accuse me of ignoring your points, yet when have you or @Debarra even once responded to Jasnah's own words? 

Jasnah

Does 

Not

Believe

God

Exists

So why would any being of power, any structure, any definition of anyone of what god is change that? 

Quote

We know that Jasnah believes that god does not exist.  In the same way, we know that Dalinar believes god does exist.  It's not the topic of this thread, but it's equally valid to ask him why he believes god does exist.  If you are trying to discuss the point of whether or not god exists, no one gets to start from the position that their belief is already right.

But we are not discussing whether or not god exists. This is theism versus atheism, and is an entirely different discussion. That is the disconnect I am trying to get across. You are acting as if you are arguing with an atheist that they are wrong. The question is what would Jasnah, the atheist do in view of the shards. And that is clear as day and has been said in the books, and repeatedly here. Nothing. She would still be an atheist. The shards did not change anything. 

Quote

Jasnah is a smart person who makes decisions based on logic.  She evaluated many, many religions and philosophies and made the conscious choice to be an atheist.  She has almost certainly used logic to decide whether or not she believes god exists.  We are trying to understand the logic she used to make that decision and how she applies it to the godlike beings she encounters.  I believe that Jasnah's logic is something like this:

1) If there is a god, it must have X properties.

2a) I have logically considered whether a being with X properties can logically exist and have concluded it is not possible.

2b) I have also done extensive research into this topic and have not found evidence of a being that has X properties.

3) Therefore, god does not exist.

That is faulty logic. It starts with the assumption that god exists, and every practice, every test is only discovering that that version of god does not exist, but an "actual" god does, it just has not been proven yet. That is not what Jasnah believes. Jasnah believes god does not exist. All the whole shard business proved was to those that believed Vorinism, that Vorinism is false. Jasnah never believed Vorinism in the beginning, so why would its disproof change anything?

Quote

We want to know what "X" is for Jasnah.  You aren't willing to go there and I don't want to push you to go somewhere you don't want to go, this is a topic that can be pretty personal.  For me personally, I took a few philosophy classes in college so it is interesting to me to examine these issues and my own beliefs.  To truly talk about these issues, you have to question things you believe as fundamentally true (the existence of god, most people fundamentally believe god exists or doesn't as a fundamental truth).  But it's not for everyone.

The thing that seems to be the continual brick wall both you and @debrra are going against is this idea that if one thing is not god, something else must be. Jasnah is asserting there is not. She literally says:

Jasnah sniffed in derision. “I would not dedicate four years of my life to such an empty pursuit. It’s idiocy to try to prove a negative. Let the Vorin believe as they wish—the wise among them will find goodness and solace in their faith; the fools would be fools no matter what they believed.”

What is alien about this?

 

Ok, maybe if I try this tact. 

Jasnah: God does not exist

Vorinism, this is our definition of god. The Almighty is all powerful, and eternal. He listens to glyphwards

Jasnah: that is great for you. Worship as you wish. God does not exist, so what you worship is not god. It is for you. Have fun

Horneaters: Spren are gods. 

Jasnah: That is great for you. Worship as you wish. God does not exist, so what you worship is not god. It is for you. Have fun

Pure Lakers: Nu Ralik is god

Jasnah: That is great for you. Worship as you wish. God does not exist, so what you worship is not god. it is for you. Have fun

 

Vorinism is proven wrong. Almight is not all powerful, and eternal. He cannot listen to glyphwards because he is dead

Jasnah: I am sorry for your loss. 

Horneaters: Vorinism is wrong! That means Horneaters are right!

Pure Lakers: No that means Nu Ralik is right!

Jasnah: No all that means is the belief structure for those that prescribed to that belief structure are wrong. It does not make any other entity exist or not exist. Just that specific instance of that specific belief was proven false. Vorinism could just as easily change their definition of the Almighty for it to be valid for them again. Then god exists for them again. They could easily change their definition of the almighty, or say that being is not the almighty, something else must be (like Dalinar). That is where you get different "branches" of faith. For myself god does not exist. So nothing has changed. 

20 hours ago, Debarra said:

 

 

20 hours ago, Debarra said:

 

So you just rewrote what you already wrote that I already responded to, so I guess go back to my last post?

17 hours ago, ChickenLiberty said:

She seems to be defining God as one she considers worthy of determining her morality and deserves to be worshipped. 

Defining it as such would mean that there is a god that exists that does determine morality and deserves to be worshiped. Just that that deity has not been discovered or proven yet. That every proof of the non existence of god, is the proof to a "false" god, and the true "god" that holds to this definition is "still out there". She believes god does not exist, so this would be incorrect. 

To put this portion another way. If someone defines god as determining morality and should be worshiped. Then I can say my lord cat determines morality and should be worshiped. My lord cat exists, and he is mighty as he feasts on friskies. Thus god exists! You said the definition of a god that can determine morality and should be worshiped! I say my lord cat can determine morality and should be worshiped! You see he exists! Ah ha! So you cannot be an atheist anymore! You must now worship my cat! But that is not how it works. I think that my cat determines morality and should be worshiped. That is great for me. That does not mean Jasnah does. To Jasnah God does not exist, so it does not matter whether that I do or do not think that my cat determines morality and should be worshiped. It is not god. And if someone comes along and is able to definitively prove that my cat cannot define morality and should be worshiped, does not mean some other entity can. It does not mean some other entity cannot. All it proves is my cat can't, and I need to re-examine my own faith. To either then prescribe to another faith, or alter my existing to say that my cat is still god, just he can't determine morality. Even though he cannot determine morality, I think he should still be worshiped, so I worship him. Or I decide a bird can do it. Or I decide Yahweh can do it. Or Vishnu. Or Allah. It is all the same to an atheist. 

Edited January 7, 2020 by Pathfinder

[Chiberty]

1 hour ago, Pathfinder said:

Defining it as such would mean that there is a god that exists that does determine morality and deserves to be worshiped. Just that that deity has not been discovered or proven yet. That every proof of the non existence of god, is the proof to a "false" god, and the true "god" that holds to this definition is "still out there". She believes god does not exist, so this would be incorrect. 

I'm confused... I can define "fairy," but I don't think they exist. 

[Pathfinder]

57 minutes ago, ChickenLiberty said:

I'm confused... I can define "fairy," but I don't think they exist. 

And I can find 100 other people and cultures with different definitions of fairy than you. What makes your definition correct? It does not exist, so we cannot compare. We cannot take your definition and put it side by side with what a fairy actually is, because it does not exist. So we cannot confirm that your definition is correct or accurate. 

 

edit: to expand on the example. Let us say you define fairy as a tiny woman with wings. Then a tiny woman with wings appears. You say "see! I was right! Right here is one!" Someone from Russia, or Africa, or the Artic will look at you and go "that's not a fairy!". They have a different definition of fairy, so regardless the existence of that "fairy" that you call a fairy, it is still not a fairy. Then let us say the tiny woman with wings is revealed to be the result of a holographic projection (the method or cause is immaterial, just the result) thus proving that thing you called a fairy is not a fairy. That did not suddenly make the Russian, or African, or Inuit right by you being wrong. That does not make their fairys exist any more or less than before. It could just as easily come to pass that their definition of fairy spontaneously appears validating their definition, and then that fairy is definitively proven to not be a fairy invalidating their definition. Just in that instance what your definition of that entity was inaccurate. You either revise that definition so in your mind it is accurate, till it is again potentially revealed to be inaccurate, or you assert fairies do not exist. There will always be a possibility that whatever definition you come up with for fairies will be wrong or disproved. That does not mean fairies exist. It just means that specific definition is proven wrong. 

Edited January 7, 2020 by Pathfinder

[Vissy]

Jasnah doesn't "have" a religion. She doesn't believe that Honor, or any of the Shards, or even Adonalsium, is a deity. It just means that she believes they are natural beings that do not need to be worshipped. You simply treat them as very powerful beings. That's what atheism essentially is. Even if there was some super powerful being that is capable of shaping planets and creating life, worshipping them is not necessary. Worship is a choice.

Edited January 7, 2020 by Vissy

[+Oltux72]

18 hours ago, ChickenLiberty said:

She seems to be defining God as one she considers worthy of determining her morality and deserves to be worshipped. 

She is a Knight Radiant with a Blade at least. Hence she has sworn at least the third oath. The oaths have been imposed by a Herald whom in turn Honor had created. I am sorry, but if that is the only criterium then Honor is a god. NOw considering the worshipping aspect, well that is of course entirely subjective. Her other attitudes are determined by science. Of course she considers the Allmighty unnecessary. Otherwise she would need to conclude that he exists. But you cannot conclude that something that does not need to exist does not exist. That is just not logical.

18 minutes ago, Vissy said:

Jasnah doesn't "have" a religion. She doesn't believe that Honor, or any of the Shards, or even Adonalsium, is a deity. It just means that she believes they are natural beings that do not need to be worshipped. You simply treat them as very powerful beings. That's what atheism essentially is. Even if there was some super powerful being that is capable of shaping planets and creating life, worshipping them is not necessary. Worship is a choice.

Turning atheism into just another religion by imposing an unfalsifiable condition upon it. One may do so. But for a scientist to do so is distinctly odd.

[Pathfinder]

1 hour ago, Oltux72 said:

She is a Knight Radiant with a Blade at least. Hence she has sworn at least the third oath.

This is potentially true and can be verified. 

Quote

The oaths have been imposed by a Herald whom in turn Honor had created.

This we do not know. Some will and have debated this. 

Quote

I am sorry, but if that is the only criterium then Honor is a god.

It is not the only criteria. It is some of the criteria for the Vorin Faith. Jasnah is responding to the Vorin faith. Not her own. Her offering commentary (when pressed) that disproves Vorinism does not mean she would worship a god that can provide morals. She is stating the Vorin god can exist without providing morals. She has no need of it. She at no point says Taravangian cannot worship such a being that to him is god. Just to her it is not.

Quote

NOw considering the worshipping aspect, well that is of course entirely subjective. Her other attitudes are determined by science. Of course she considers the Allmighty unnecessary. Otherwise she would need to conclude that he exists. But you cannot conclude that something that does not need to exist does not exist. That is just not logical.

The existence of the Almighty is entirely subjective. There can always be a sliding scale. Proof this aspect of Vorinism wrong, and the devout can state god is not that, so god still exists. An Atheist asserts god does not exist. So the Almighty can require worship or not, it is still not god. 

Quote

Turning atheism into just another religion by imposing an unfalsifiable condition upon it. One may do so. But for a scientist to do so is distinctly odd.

At what point has Jasnah stated to anyone else, ever, that they are wrong to believe in what they believe in? At what point did she ever tell anyone they are wrong to believe the Almighty is their god? All she has stated is it is not her god. As she cannot have a god, because she believes god does not exist, so she cannot have something that does not exist

To put it another way. If Jasnah were to define what god is, when god does not exist, then it would be asserting a truth that would invalidate other people's definition of god. It would be saying their definition is verifiably wrong, because her definition is right and if your definition is not her definition, then you are wrong. This cannot be true because her definition nor yours can be verifiably right. To which one would respond "then what was she doing with Taravangian?! She said his definition of god was wrong!". No she did not. She stated Taravangian's belief is not her own. You can not verify something that does not exist. You cannot prove a negative. So it would be distinctly odd thing for Jasnah as a scientist to define what she believes god is. She can based on Taravangian's belief structure say why what Taravangian believes in is not god to her, but that does not mean that what Taravangian's god is not, is the definition of god. As there cannot be a definition to that which she believes does not exist. 

Edited January 7, 2020 by Pathfinder

[Argent]

I feel like the last page or so has devolved into extensive and unnecessarily pedantic discussion on what (a)theism is, to the point where I feel it bears very little relevance to the thread's original intent. Maybe I can refocus this by sharing my view, which I've always thought is super obvious, and you can all tell me why it is so wrong that it requires thousand+ words essays?

I've always thought that Jasnah's reaction to Honor's existence would be to 1) readily recognize his existence, 2) acknowledge that he was a Shard, and therefore incredibly powerful, but 3) not accept him (or any of the other Shards) as a god. 

[+Oltux72]

46 minutes ago, Argent said:

I feel like the last page or so has devolved into extensive and unnecessarily pedantic discussion on what (a)theism is, to the point where I feel it bears very little relevance to the thread's original intent. Maybe I can refocus this by sharing my view, which I've always thought is super obvious, and you can all tell me why it is so wrong that it requires thousand+ words essays?

I've always thought that Jasnah's reaction to Honor's existence would be to 1) readily recognize his existence, 2) acknowledge that he was a Shard, and therefore incredibly powerful,

Yes.

46 minutes ago, Argent said:

but 3) not accept him (or any of the other Shards) as a god. 

Feels like a cop out. Her original hypothesis was that he does not exist. It has been disproven. Jasnah is too rigid to react to this with an adaption. There has been new evidence, so believes have to be adjusted.

[LadyLameness]

Quick follow up to Argent's post - just a gentle reminder for everyone keep in mind that people will define religious beliefs and lack of religious beliefs differently. There is no one objective definition to any of these beliefs and they can be highly personal depending on the individual. Please be respectful when discussing how religions are defined and remember that someone else’s definition doesn’t invalidate your own or vice versa. The different views and interpretations expressed here can be discussed and explored in regards to Jasnah without any one view being proven to be the most correct.  

My two cents on the topic at hand: I think the fact that the Vessel's of the Shard's can die would be enough for Jasnah to conclude that they're not the equivalent of God. Knowing that she's gaining information about the cosmere from Hoid as well, and likely will hear the story of Adonalsium and how the Shard's came to power, I think this would further her conviction that the Shard's are powerful but not divine beings. 

Overall though, I can see her not looking at the the Shards or Adonalsium in the context of religion and God. She's content with her beliefs and her conversation with Taravangian in WoK says to me that she isn't interested in engaging with the idea of disproving religion as she doesn't see the onus as being on her to do so. I think she'll be highly interested in the Shards from an academic standpoint, but not from a religious one. 

[Pathfinder]

48 minutes ago, Oltux72 said:

Feels like a cop out. Her original hypothesis was that he does not exist. It has been disproven. Jasnah is too rigid to react to this with an adaption. There has been new evidence, so believes have to be adjusted.

She literally said she never stated it did not exist. Just that she does not consider it god. I quoted that two or three times now

[+Oltux72]

18 minutes ago, Pathfinder said:

She literally said she never stated it did not exist. Just that she does not consider it god. I quoted that two or three times now

By using half the quote and taking that one out of context

Quote

“You’re so sure he isn’t real,” Shallan said. “The Almighty.”

“I have no more proof of him than I do of the Thaylen Passions, Nu Ralik of the Purelake, or any other religion.”

 

“And the Heralds? You don’t think they existed?”

“I don’t know,” Jasnah said. “There are many things in this world that I don’t understand. For example, there is some slight proof that both the Stormfather and the Almighty are real creatures—simply powerful spren, such as the Nightwatcher.”

“Then he would be real.”

“I never claimed he was not,” Jasnah said. “I merely claimed that I do not accept him as God, nor do I feel any inclination to worship him.

First an assertion that no deities have any positive evidence. Hence you would need to prove a negative. So far so good.

Then a possible explanation how the legends arose. The Allmighty could be a spren. A reasonable explanation, but proven wrong. The core concept of her believe has been falsified. Roshar is an artificial construction. By that standard she would be claiming that there cannot be a god by definition. That is no longer a scientific statement. She would be merely stating a tautology. And Jasnah is obviously to intelligent to overlook that problem in her attitude.

[Pathfinder]

21 minutes ago, Oltux72 said:

By using half the quote and taking that one out of context

First an assertion that no deities have any positive evidence. Hence you would need to prove a negative. So far so good.

Then a possible explanation how the legends arose. The Allmighty could be a spren. A reasonable explanation, but proven wrong. The core concept of her believe has been falsified. Roshar is an artificial construction. By that standard she would be claiming that there cannot be a god by definition. That is no longer a scientific statement. She would be merely stating a tautology. And Jasnah is obviously to intelligent to overlook that problem in her attitude.

As per brandon, will follow up with the WoB, rosharans would term the shards as spren. Nothing jasnah said in that quote is inaccurate. 

[+Bliev]

I still maintain that some on this thread are treating logic like it’s part of a philosophical or rhetorical exercise, which ironically, Jasnah completely eschews in relationship to her beliefs (or lack thereof). As I said before—even considering a possible definition for something that she doesn’t believe exists just to possible find one that she could accept is futile and illogical. Why concern herself with the irrationally hypothetical when she has real issues to deal with? She is logical, yes, but her version of logic includes examining evidence, not abstract debate. That’s why this is so frustrating for some of us, I think. 

[RShara]

24 minutes ago, Pathfinder said:

As per brandon, will follow up with the WoB, rosharans would term the shards as spren. Nothing jasnah said in that quote is inaccurate. 

Not to mention, the Vorin attributes given to the "Almighty" don't actually fit Honor, so Honor isn't actually the "Almighty" anyway. Although the idea of the Almighty started with him. Honor didn't create Roshar or mankind, the Tranquiline Halls, or Damnation, for instance, whereas the Vorin "Almighty" did. And that "Almighty" really doesn't exist.

[Pathfinder]

1 hour ago, Oltux72 said:

By using half the quote and taking that one out of context

First an assertion that no deities have any positive evidence. Hence you would need to prove a negative. So far so good.

Then a possible explanation how the legends arose. The Allmighty could be a spren. A reasonable explanation, but proven wrong. The core concept of her believe has been falsified. Roshar is an artificial construction. By that standard she would be claiming that there cannot be a god by definition. That is no longer a scientific statement. She would be merely stating a tautology. And Jasnah is obviously to intelligent to overlook that problem in her attitude.

Found the WoB. The problem is it involves the words shard and spren, and there are a whole lot of WoB with those two words in it. Turns out throwing the word "call" in there helped. Jasnah is responding to the discourse with Shallan. She is stating observations. The only assertion she has made in that entire quote is that she would not call the almighty god, nor worship it. Shallan is the one assuming assertions. Shallan states that Jasnah is so sure the Almighty is not real. Jasnah only responds that she has no more proof of any other religions being true. Shallan then asks if Jasnah thinks the heralds existed, and Jasnah says she does not know. That there is even some evidence that other entities could exist. Key word, could. To which Shallan asserts then that means they exist. Jasnah clarifies she never said they don't exist. She only asserted that the Almighty is not god to her and she would nor worship it.

The Almighty as per Vorinism is proven to be false completely separate and having nothing to do with Jasnah. Dalinar is the one that proved Vorinism false. He is the one that asserted it so. He stated he was told by the Almighty in a vision that the Almighty is dead. The reality is a being called Honor. Rosharans would term the entity that is honor as a spren. A category that Jasnah already replied to in this exact quote. Not god to her. Vorins can continue to worship as they see fit. The Almighty is not god. Honor is not god. The Almighty and Honor can exist or not exist. Live or die, and that does not change her assertion that she is atheist and god does not exist. They are not god, so their existence or non-existence offers no commentary on her atheism. 

 

Questioner

Speaking of the Stormfather, would the Nightwatcher and the giant water spren be on the same level of spren as the Stormfather?

Brandon Sanderson

...The Nightwatcher, yes. Um... There are, I would say, a level below the Stormfather and the Nightwatcher who are also much-- a much bigger deal than something like one of the sapient spren, and that's what Cusicesh is.

Questioner

So the Nightwatcher is a spren you'd say?

Brandon Sanderson

The Nightwatcher-- I mean, they call the Nightwatcher a spren. Everyone in the books thinks the Nightwatcher is a spren. That's what they would call-- that's what they would call, if they knew what Honor was, they would call Honor a spren. A spren is Investiture that is alive.

Bystander

Nightblood?

Brandon Sanderson

So they would call Nightblood a spren. They would call-- That's the word for what all of these things are. They would probably've called Adonalsium a spren…

Moderator

What would Hoid call one of those?

Brandon Sanderson

What would Hoid call the Nightwatcher? *laughter* What would Hoid call one of what?

Moderator

Yeah what would Hoid call the Nightwatcher?

Brandon Sanderson

Um… *long pause/laughter*

Moderator

If Hoid were to use a non-proper noun?

Brandon Sanderson

Unpleasant names. *laughter*

JordanCon 2016 (April 23, 2016)

41 minutes ago, Bliev said:

I still maintain that some on this thread are treating logic like it’s part of a philosophical or rhetorical exercise, which ironically, Jasnah completely eschews in relationship to her beliefs (or lack thereof). As I said before—even considering a possible definition for something that she doesn’t believe exists just to possible find one that she could accept is futile and illogical. Why concern herself with the irrationally hypothetical when she has real issues to deal with? She is logical, yes, but her version of logic includes examining evidence, not abstract debate. That’s why this is so frustrating for some of us, I think. 

Thank you!

25 minutes ago, RShara said:

Not to mention, the Vorin attributes given to the "Almighty" don't actually fit Honor, so Honor isn't actually the "Almighty" anyway. Although the idea of the Almighty started with him. Honor didn't create Roshar or mankind, the Tranquiline Halls, or Damnation, for instance, whereas the Vorin "Almighty" did. And that "Almighty" really doesn't exist.

Thank you! The only thing disproved was Vorin's definition of the Almighty. 

Edited January 8, 2020 by Pathfinder

[Nymeros]

I wish there was some way other than through upvotes that I could recognize @agrabes and @Debarra for their work in this thread to provude such clear and compelling arguments.

This is the most interesting thread Ive encountered on this site in years.

12 hours ago, Pathfinder said:

And I can find 100 other people and cultures with different definitions of fairy than you. What makes your definition correct? It does not exist, so we cannot compare. We cannot take your definition and put it side by side with what a fairy actually is, because it does not exist. So we cannot confirm that your definition is correct or accurate. 

Why does it matter if the user's definition of fairy is accurate? Why does it matter if others have different definitions?

What matters is that the user has a definition to reference when working to confirm or verify whether something is a fairy.

Quote

They have a different definition of fairy, so regardless the existence of that "fairy" that you call a fairy, it is still not a fairy.

Why does the Russian or African's definition invalidate the definition posited by the user?

Also notice that the Russian and African disagree with the notion that the winged tiny woman is a fairy because they have their own criteria that a being must meet to be considered by them as a fairy.

If we add Jasnah to the equation, wouldn't you expect her to have her own criteria to use as a basis if she is certain that a winged tiny woman is not a fairy? What exactly would she believe is preventing such a creature from being a fairy? 

[GoWibble]

Nice. 5 pages of religious debate.

just want to point out that "a god" is different than "God" 

capital letters matter

[Pathfinder]

6 hours ago, Nymeros said:

I wish there was some way other than through upvotes that I could recognize @agrabes and @Debarra for their work in this thread to provude such clear and compelling arguments.

This is the most interesting thread Ive encountered on this site in years.

Why does it matter if the user's definition of fairy is accurate? Why does it matter if others have different definitions?

Because defining something is stating something is something. So for one individual a fairy is a little woman with wings. For another a fairy may be an old crone. For another a fairy could be a human sized individual with pointed ears. For another it could be a fox. For each person, the other people's definition is wrong, because that is not a fairy to them. An atheist asserts that none are right, none are wrong, because for an atheist a fairy does not exist. So there cannot be an accurate definition. Asserting such does not state that it is wrong for any of those three individuals to believe as they do. It only asserts for the atheist that the atheist believes they do not exist and thereby cannot be defined. Ricky Gervais made a humorous but very accurate point when discussing religion with Steven Colbert. He said something to the effect of "You don't believe in 2,299 religions. I just don't believe in one more". Why is it one can assert one religion is the "right" one, thereby stating all other religions are the "wrong" one, but someone cannot assert hat religion and god don't "exist" so other religions existence or non existence does not matter to that individual? Jasnah said she does not need company to hold to her convictions. She does not need other people to denounce they religion and join her. She is content in her own beliefs that there is no god. That does not invalidate or confront anyone else's beliefs. Now if someone approaches her, and states why their belief in god is the right way, and that she should revise her belief to coincide with that belief because that belief is the "right" way, then Jasnah will respond why that specific belief is not something she would  believe. That does not make it the metric for something she would call god. Because for her god does not exist. So she would not try to define it. She would not even intend to try and define it by what it is "not". If that was the case, then as I have said before, based on every religion she has covered, God to her is nothing. Because it is not animal, mineral, planet, etc. It is not a one and all powerful god. It is not a myriad of gods. It is not an emotion. It is not etc. For Jasnah, god does not exist. 

6 hours ago, Nymeros said:

What matters is that the user has a definition to reference when working to confirm or verify whether something is a fairy.

Because that is the scientific method. You make a hypothesis. Fairies are little winged women. We attempt to find real physical proof. We cannot. So we research witness statements. We try to find corroboratory information. There is not. We can state "these people define fairy as a little woman with wings". We can come up with a generic word "supernatural" or "divine" to describe what they are referring to. But that does not mean that if the thing then is suddenly shown, that changes things. Ok let me put it this way. The definition of "divine" is "of, from, or like God". So if someone were to call something divine, then it depends on that person what god is to that person. If someone calls something "supernatural" then it is defined as a "force beyond scientific understanding or laws of nature". If fairy suddenly pops up that is a little winged woman, it ceases to be supernatural. We can then observe it. Test it. If those tests confirm every single thing that person's definition of fairy stated, then that still does not mean that a minute later, a day, a week, a month, a year later, that information or new technological advances could not occur to result in that definition being proven incorrect. The Almighty has a specific definition to Vorinism. And for thousands of years, it was accepted as such by the individuals that prescribed to Vorinism. Till one day it was no longer. Till one day that specific definition of that specific entity was shown to be inaccurate. Prior to that reveal, was the Almighty God? Just because at that time, the people who followed the Almighty did not know the definition was inaccurate, is the Almighty God? That is why I said prior, are we to say God is of the gaps? Anything we do not know is God? Till we know it, then God is further away? And it will continue and continue and continue till we know everything? But we cannot know everything. It is an impossibility. How do you definitively prove everything? Everything that has ever been and ever was? A theist would take that as a sign of god. Because for a theist, god does know everything and is all possible. For an atheist, it is not. The only conclusion the Atheist can make is god does not exist. 

[Honorless]

On 1/8/2020 at 1:10 AM, Oltux72 said:

She is a Knight Radiant with a Blade at least. Hence she has sworn at least the third oath. The oaths have been imposed by a Herald whom in turn Honor had created.

There is a WoB on this:

Quote

Blightsong

Were the ideals of the Knights Radiant consciously chosen, or did they happen naturally?

Brandon Sanderson

*apprehension*. This is one of those vague ones in that yes and no. They are a natural outgrowth of the spren, but the spren are a natural outgrowth of human's perception of natural forces, but the spren are sentient, so I would say it's a little more by instinct than not. For example two Knights Radiant in the same Order might speak the words differently, but the concept is the same. You will see this happen in a future book, where a Windrunner will speak the oaths. It's a slightly different take on the same concept. Some are moreso, like Shallan's oaths are very individualized truths, so.

OdysseyCon 2016 (April 8, 2016)

 

[Nymeros]

15 hours ago, Pathfinder said:

Because defining something is stating something is something.

How can you confidently assert that something does not exist when you have no idea as to what that thing that you are discussing actually is or does or means?

Quote

An atheist asserts that none are right, none are wrong, because for an atheist a fairy does not exist. 

Now we've circled around to the user's initial post: defining something is not an assertion of the things existence. I do not believe that fairies exist. However I can define fairy. Whether my definition aligns with that of others is not in any way relevant to the fact that I can tell you what I believe a fairy to be without believing that a being which fits my criteria can be found in nature. 

Quote

Why is it one can assert one religion is the "right" one, thereby stating all other religions are the "wrong" one, but someone cannot assert hat religion and god don't "exist" so other religions existence or non existence does not matter to that individual?

I don't think it's possible to assert that religion and god dont exist OR do exist when you literally have no ability to comprehend or define those terms. 

Quote

Because that is the scientific method. 

In honesty, I don't understand how this section regarding using the scientific method actually responds to the comment you quoted. 

 

 

To answer the OP: I believe that Jasnah would define god as an unseen, unknown, and unknowable being which is worthy of worship of some kind.

[Pathfinder]

11 hours ago, Nymeros said:

How can you confidently assert that something does not exist when you have no idea as to what that thing that you are discussing actually is or does or means?

I guess what I have been trying to convey but have been failing is that the definition of fairy is not someone coming up and saying "fairy is this". We cannot say that, because a fairy does not exist. I will elaborate below

Quote

Now we've circled around to the user's initial post: defining something is not an assertion of the things existence. I do not believe that fairies exist. However I can define fairy. Whether my definition aligns with that of others is not in any way relevant to the fact that I can tell you what I believe a fairy to be without believing that a being which fits my criteria can be found in nature. 

So we take the fairy example. We type fairy in google and we get a definition from the dictionary that says:

 

noun: a small imaginary being of human form that has magical powers, especially a female one

adjective

belonging to, resembling, or associated with fairies.

 

Does that mean we can now apply that definition to everything we see to determine whether it is a fairy or not? We cannot. Because this is a generic definition for someone who just wants a generic idea. It is not what a fairy is. It can be said it is the most common and widely accepted version of a fairy, but if we look back 100 years, then the most common and widely accepted version of a fairy might be different. Is the definition of fairy only determinate on the number of people that currently agree on it?

Then we look at the Merriam Webster dictionary (I will only reference the first one in the dictionary, as the other regarding the slur is not pertinent here)

1. a mythical being of folklore and romance usually having diminutive human form and magic powers

 

So we have a definition right? But notice the word choices here. Mythical. Folklore. Usually. Now we could then go into the definitions of those words, but suffice it to say they are self referential (mythical for instance is "occuring in or characteristic of myths, idealized, ficticious). So what was really defined? Can we then if a fairy suddenly did actually exist, say it meets these requirements? And if it does meet these requirements, is it truly a fairy? The concepts to use to define the fairy are not concrete. They are not measurable because they are trying to come up with a rough approximation of what people can recognize so they have something to discuss. 

So then we take it further and go to a source such as wikipedia, or a library source on fairy. The definition of that is then:

A fairy (also fata, fay, fae, fair folk; from faery, faerie, "realm of the fays") is a type of mythical being or legendary creature in European folklore (and particularly Celtic, Slavic, German, English, and French folklore), a form of spirit, often described as metaphysical, supernatural, or preternatural.

(I copied pasted to make it easier than retyping it). So what does this definition really tell us? Is it actually defining a fairy? Or is it defining what other people who believe in fairies have or do define a fairy as? It lists all the currently known words for fairy. It lists the types of cultures that usually believe in them.But is it defining what a fairy is? I believe the answer is no. It is citing those people's definition. The person writing that article, or section in the dictionary is not defining fairy. They are providing references to those that do. 

Quote

In honesty, I don't understand how this section regarding using the scientific method actually responds to the comment you quoted. 

So let us take another concept. Gravity. It is a theory. We have a definition for it. Can one day a new knowledge, or technology arise that changes that definition? Of course. It is a theory. It is to be questioned. It is to be worked on, altered, tested and retested. If someone writes what gravity is, and someone else comes across and says "that is not true, gravity does not exist". The original person can say "ok, well here are the tests I used that brought about my conclusions.". The person that disagrees then attempts to replicate those tests. They can determine if those tests are accurate or not. They can run their own tests. And their tests can be tested for accuracy. To an atheist, God cannot. To take things further, we can make conclusions based on the theory of gravity. Conclusions that then can be tested and replicated. Conclusions that result in real definable and actionable results. We get things like airplanes, and cars. We get airbags. All things that function based on an understanding of what gravity is. It does not matter if one person believes it, 100, 1000. It does not matter if 100 believe it 10 years ago, but one believes it now. If the test yields the results, the test yields the results. If you can then act on those results, and derive further results, then it does not matter if that one person, or everyone believes it, it still is. Because it was tested. It occurred. It was measured. 

If we go back to the whole Almighty discussion where Jasnah says morals are outside of the almighty's purview, so the character Taravangian replies that she has removed all need for the Almighty's existence, and Jasnah said indeed. If we say that is then Jasnah's definition of god, that implies that if a being was revealed to provide morals, then that being would be god. That if someone could present Jasnah with a being that could provide morals, Jasnah would then be required to call that being god. So let us take this example and run it fully through. So now we have a being that provides morals. At Jasnah's current knowledge and technological level she cannot disprove this beings capability to or to not provide morals. So then the being is god? Ok then lets say that. Then lets say 1000 years pass. Jasnah has lived and died and become dust. Someone one day find a way to make a moral sensor. It can detect the source of morals. It is solid scientific work. It is tested. It is proven. That person then holds the sensor up to the entity, and the sensor says nope. This is not the source of morals. Does the being that was believed to provide morals, and that criteria making it god, cease to be god? And if it ceases to god, does it mean back when Jasnah was alive, that being at that time was or was not god? 

Which is why the question becomes (for the atheist Jasnah), are we terming god to be a being that we just cannot prove wrong yet? For Jasnah, a person of logic and reason, that is trying to prove a negative. In Jasnah's words, that is irrelevant and pointless. In Jasnah's words, god does not exist. So in Jasnah's words, why try to prove a negative?

(side note. I am emphasizing in Jasnah's words, to indicate it is Jasnah's perspective. I am not personally saying religion is irrelevant and pointless. Honestly I do not believe even she is saying that. She is saying in regards to herself it is irrelevant and pointless. But that does not mean Shallan believing in Shallan's god is irrelevant and pointless. Shallan is perfectly entitled to believe. Jasnah is not intending to mock or diminish Shallan's beliefs. She is only stating why they are not hers. )

edit: I think I found another way to say it. Jasnah would rather assert god does not exist, and spend her time researching and working on fabrials, the desolation, and survival, than continually coming up with a new proof that god does not exist. One pursuit she feels is actionable and will yield results. The other pursuit is (to her/atheists) just a continual sliding metric that by its nature can never yield actionable definable results. 

Quote

To answer the OP: I believe that Jasnah would define god as an unseen, unknown, and unknowable being which is worthy of worship of some kind.

Personally based on the quote that Jasnah said an unseen, unknown, and unknowable entity is in her words "an exercise in futility". I do not believe her definition of god would include it. But to each their own. 

edit: To clarify, I am not intending to say you cannot believe that that is her definition. Just going back to the earlier part you quoted me on, and the earlier quotes I posted from the books, I personally do not think that is the case. Also not intending to say you are wrong in believing as you do. Just I personally do not believe that. 

Edited January 9, 2020 by Pathfinder

[Quantus]

On 1/9/2020 at 0:48 AM, Nymeros said:

To answer the OP: I believe that Jasnah would define god as an unseen, unknown, and unknowable being which is worthy of worship of some kind.

Havent really caught up with the current debate, but commenting on this OP topic:  I dont think "Unknowable" fits Jasnah.  I think she'd reject the idea of anything Unknowable entirely (unknown sure, but not forever unknowable), and she's logic-minded enough to recognize that including a Impossible criteria in her definition would invalidate the definition, as it would be a really round-about way to simply say she believes God(s) are impossible. 

And separately, including the "Worthy of Worship" is a whole other theological can of worms. I mean, most consider the Heralds to be worthy of Worship, but many of the Heralds themselves dont seem to agree.  Similarly, Szeth is sort of worshiping Dalinar right now after Swearing to Him personally, but all involved would balk at calling him a god (for now...).  Personally I think Jasnah would require a more objective definition.  

I tend to think that Jasnah would (grudgingly) accept Adonalsium (as we currently understand him) as a god.  If she can accept the concept of Ascension to Godhood then she'd probably be ok with the Shardic Vessels as gods, but that would lead to finding the line between the bigger spren and gods (and the only answer I have is that they natively exist in all three Realms, unlike Spren).