The Seven are the only "fake" gods

[kimim]

I don't have any strong objection to this. What I don't see is any strong argument that Melisandre is wrong, or that the series is taking an opposing viewpoint. As I have said before, I have no objection to the THEORY that Ashara Dayne is alive, but would object if people said the series provided "no evidence" (however ambiguous or unreliable) that she is dead. Similarly, I don't object to people speculating that Melisandre is wrong ... I merely dislike the attitude that her position does not count at all so no evidence at all need be presented for opposing theories.

Anyhow, here's another quote from GRRM on magic, from a 2007 Weird Tales interview. It won't directly resolve any disputes her, but is still food for thought.

GRRM: Yes, and Unknown Worlds was a particular subset of fantasy, driven, I think, by Campbell’s very deep rationalism, his desire to make magic obey the laws that engineering might obey. So you could discover the seven principles of magic and apply them. To my mind the ultimate Unknown Worlds stories were always the Incomplete Enchanter stories — the Harold Shea stories — by Pratt and de Camp. Harold Shea is always going into these worlds, and there is magic at work, but it’s not mysterious. It is strange to him at first, but when he works out the underlying principles, he can easily become a magician, because he is basically an engineer. That was an amusing and, I think, an original take on it all at the time, in the 1930s and ‘40s, but it’s certainly not my take. I find myself more in sympathy with the way Tolkien handled magic. I think if you’re going to do magic, it loses its magical qualities if it becomes nothing more than an alternate kind of science. It is more effective if it is something profoundly unknowable and wondrous, and something that can take your breath away.

We can't know if there are gods in Martin's world. I'm not sure if Martin would say that he knows. If there are gods, whether they're the CoF's nature gods, or the Manichean R'hllor, or the Septinity, or something else, we again can't know.

Melisandre's problem is that she believes she knows something she can't know. For instance, her power is greater near the Wall. Why is that, if her power is given to her by R'hllor?

[ChillyPolly]

For instance, her power is greater near the Wall. Why is that, if her power is given to her by R'hllor?

Why is that if her power is NOT given to her by R'hllor? My not knowing the answer to this question is completely irrelevant to whether or not an actual entity exists which is granting her these powers. You cannot answer it either.

Maybe Rh'llor is trapped in the Wall.

Incidentally, what made magic "wondrous" in Tolkien was that it was driven by entities with powers beyond human (or hobbit) comprehension. Gandalf's powers were wondrous not because there was any doubt about Gandalf's existence, but merely because Gandalf was viewed through the eyes of hobbits, who were incapable of understanding how he could do the things he did. They were perfectly capable of knowing that Gandalf existed, though.

In ASOIAF, however, mere humans do wield the powers. In this context, I don't know how one could maintain the wonder if the humans are indeed fully in control of the magic. It works better if it is at least hinted that they are the tools and puppets of forces that even they do not fully understand, and cannot control.

[kimim]

...

Incidentally, what made magic "wondrous" in Tolkien was that it was driven by entities with powers beyond human (or hobbit) comprehension. Gandalf's powers were wondrous not because there was any doubt about Gandalf's existence, but merely because Gandalf was viewed through the eyes of hobbits, who were incapable of understanding how he could do the things he did. They were perfectly capable of knowing that Gandalf existed, though.

In ASOIAF, however, mere humans do wield the powers. In this context, I don't know how one could maintain the wonder if the humans are indeed fully in control of the magic. It works better if it is at least hinted that they are the tools and puppets of forces that even they do not fully understand, and cannot control.

I agree. The novel encourages discussion of gods, but refuses to give an answer; this is not Narnia. It's not a world governed purely by science, either. There is magic. The source of the magic is unclear.

I know a couple of atheists who read Tarot cards, are into astrology. Believing in a world where magic exists but gods don't is possible, for them, anyway.

[JonathanTheBold]

I still haven't seen anyone draw a line from this person uses magic to this god causing it other than that person say it's because of said god. also I'd say it pretty obvious that the old god are just humans on trees not what I'd call a god

[Ibbison from Ibben]

Visions versus visions. I don't get it. I realize the first "vision" means (to you) "vision of something real" and the second means (to you) "hallucination" or "vision not reflecting something real", but the only difference I see is your determination to trust one and not the other. In both cases, someone has indeed seen something. But it does not count in the second case because you have already decided that what is seen, and heard, cannot be real? Is that not conclusory and circular?

You completely missed the point. Here's your mistake.

(Here's my line that you quoted with your boldface added.)

We have reports of actual visual sightings of unicorns, krakens, and ice spiders. We have no reports of a visual sighting of R'hllor. [...] We instead have visions that some believe were sent by R'hllor.

You bolded the wrong part. It should be -

We instead have visions that some believe were sent by R'hllor.

The source is unconfirmed. I completely agree that Mel, Moqorro, and to a lesser degree Thoros, are capable of fire scrying. The assumption that the visions are sent by R'hllor, however, is completely unwarranted. What evidence exists that the visions were sent by R'hllor? None. Using the fact that Mel thinks her visions come from R'hllor as evidence that R'hllor exists is not valid reasoning. Where's the chain of evidence to support that claim?

Scrying exists in the world of aSoIaF. Absolutely. But that isn't evidence that R'hllor exists. We have an actual case of fire scrying that has nothing to do with R'hllor.

tPatQ spoiler

Alys Rivers. She can scry from fires, storm clouds, and lakes/ponds.

So given the choice between two explanations -

Mel's fire visions are due to her own ability (something we know can happen)

or

Mel's fire visions come from R'hllor (an entity no one has ever seen, and can't be linked to the visions by any hard evidence, only an unsubstantiated claim)

logic dictates we accept the first, until new evidence is presented.

[Ibbison from Ibben]

This is a bizarre objection. Just because Varamyr Sixskins is worshipped as a god by one local tribe, does not mean that no-one else (such as Mance Raider) has ever dealt with him or gained his cooperation on a different basis. And of course, there may be other skinchangers in the world besides Sixskins, who are less likely to demand worship.

In the case of mages who do not specifically identify the source of their power, there is no evidence one way or another. It may come from an entity, or it may not. The sorceror may worship an entity, or the sorceror may (deluded or not) imagine he is the one in control, and the spirits are the ones doing HIS bidding. The deluded sorceror who imagines himself in control, but who is in fact a puppet of forces beyond his control, is not unprecedented in fantasy fiction.

That the sorceror might NOT be firmly in control is at least vaguely suggested by the following quote by GRRM: "For magic to be effective in a literary sense it has to be unknowable and strange and dangerous, with forces that can't be predicted or controlled".

There's nothing bizarre about my point. It's about having standards.

We know magic exists; we've seen it. We know magic users exist; we've seen them.

We don't know where their power comes from. We have no evidence. We can't trace the trail A magic user can just as easily be deluded about the existence of a deity powering his magic as he can be deluded about the non-existence of said deity.

A person who claims a deity exists and claims to be in a favored position to reveal that deity's will is not an objective reporter. That person stands to gain much if the claim is accepted. Thus the unsubstantiated claim can't itself be taken as evidence. Something more is needed.

Until valid evidence of existence is presented, reason demands we assume a default position of skepticism.

[ChillyPolly]

You bolded the wrong part. It should be -

We instead have visions that some believe were sent by R'hllor.

The source is unconfirmed.

The source is ALWAYS unconfirmed. You are ALWAYS free to doubt it. I conclude you exist because you seem to be answering my posts. But perhaps I am arguing with myself, and then in a fit of forgetfulness, deluding myself into believing they are sent me by some external entity.

Ordinarily, however, if someone or something SEEMS to be communicating with me, it is reasonable to conclude that it exists. And, language being arbitrary, I might as well call it Rh'llor, since I must call it something. Or perhaps I can call it Ibbison from Ibben.

I completely agree that Mel, Moqorro, and to a lesser degree Thoros, are capable of fire scrying. The assumption that the visions are sent by R'hllor, however, is completely unwarranted. What evidence exists that the visions were sent by R'hllor? None. Using the fact that Mel thinks her visions come from R'hllor as evidence that R'hllor exists is not valid reasoning. Where's the chain of evidence to support that claim

By similar logic: I completely agree that ChillyPolly is capable of browsing these forums. The assumption that any messages are sent by Ibbison from Ibben are completely unwarranted. What evidence exists that the messages were sent by Ibbisen from Ibben? None. Using the fact that ChillyPolly thinks her messages come from Ibbison from Ibben as evidence that Ibbisen from Ibbon exists is not valid reasoning. Where is the chain of evidence to support that claim?

tPatQ spoiler

Spoiler

Alys Rivers. She can scry from fires, storm clouds, and lakes/ponds.

So given the choice between two explanations -

Mel's fire visions are due to her own ability (something we know can happen)

or

Mel's fire visions come from R'hllor (an entity no one has ever seen, and can't be linked to the visions by any hard evidence, only an unsubstantiated claim)

The problem with this argument is that uses an argument from ignorance. Whenever the nature or the scrying is unspecified, you take this as PROOF that the scrying has nothing to do with any external entity.

[Ibbison from Ibben]

And to get back to the actual OP

It is strange that no "magic" has been associated with the Faith of the Seven, when some other religions in Planetos seem to claim some. (Please note I said religions, not gods.) Still, GRRM might be sitting on some evidence for the sake of drama. Perhaps Lancel will end up fighting unGregor, and will take him down by somehow using one of those seven sided crystals.crystals.

[kimim]

...

So given the choice between two explanations -

Mel's fire visions are due to her own ability (something we know can happen)

or

Mel's fire visions come from R'hllor (an entity no one has ever seen, and can't be linked to the visions by any hard evidence, only an unsubstantiated claim)

logic dictates we accept the first, until new evidence is presented.

...logic dictates that there are more than two options here. Mel's visions are

1. due to her own ability

2. come from R'hllor

3. come from other god/s

4. come from an undefined force, not necessarily divine.

We don't know.

[Ibbison from Ibben]

The source is ALWAYS unconfirmed. You are ALWAYS free to doubt it. I conclude you exist because you seem to be answering my posts. But perhaps I am arguing with myself, and then in a fit of forgetfulness, deluding myself into believing they are sent me by some external entity.

There's a difference between the 99.9999999999999999999999% chance Ibbison of Ibben exists and the total lack of evidence for the existence of R'hllor.

Ordinarily, however, if someone or something SEEMS to be communicating with me, it is reasonable to conclude that it exists. And, language being arbitrary, I might as well call it Rh'llor, since I must call it something. Or perhaps I can call it Ibbison from Ibben.

We have Mel's POV. There's absolutely nothing in it that suggests she's being "communicated to" by any entity. R'hllor doesn't say, "Hi, Mel. How's it going? Here's some things I want you to see." She just sees scenes. There's no evidence of a second party being involved.

By similar logic: I completely agree that ChillyPolly is capable of browsing these forums. The assumption that any messages are sent by Ibbison from Ibben are completely unwarranted. What evidence exists that the messages were sent by Ibbisen from Ibben? None. Using the fact that ChillyPolly thinks her messages come from Ibbison from Ibben as evidence that Ibbisen from Ibbon exists is not valid reasoning. Where is the chain of evidence to support that claim?

Lots of posts you could search for?

The problem with this argument is that uses an argument from ignorance. Whenever the nature or the scrying is unspecified, you take this as PROOF that the scrying has nothing to do with any external entity.

Not proof. A logical conclusion until new evidence is presented.

[White Ravens]

I'm off to find more genuine dialogue.

circular reasoning works because

[Ibbison from Ibben]

...logic dictates that there are more than two options here. Mel's visions are

1. due to her own ability

2. come from R'hllor

3. come from other god/s

4. come from an undefined force, not necessarily divine.

We don't know.

But since we know Mel exists, and we have no evidence for 2, 3, or 4, I would say my conclusion

logic dictates we accept the first, until new evidence is presented.

still stands. And I'm perfectly ready to reevaluate when that evidence is presented. Perhaps since there are more possibilities, that chance is greater. But it hasn't happened yet.

[oursisthefury69]

From the 5 religions that have ever been in westeros (The 7, old gods,drowned god,r'hlorr,and the valyrian faith) we have seen only 4 out of 5 show any power whatsoever

old gods have green dreams and warging

drowned god has people coming back from the dead (aeron damphair for example)

the valyrian faith being the only faith that allows control over dragons ( I know that the fot7 targs had dragons aswell but they were muuuuuuuch weaker than the original 3)

and ofcourse r'hlorr the biggest religion in the world, smallest in westeros, but obviously, the most powerfull. it can ressurect people, make shadow babies reveal the future and much much more

in truth, the only religion we haven't seen showing "godly" powers is ironiclly the biggest one in westeros, apart from its holy orders, the fot7 is probably "fake" as in non existent in planetos we haven't seen any of the 7 helping characters (catelyn prayed to the mother but lost all her children), (jamie prayed to the warrior but lost the battle against robb and eventually, his arm) (davos prayed to the smith but lost his navy)

really, any character that prays to seven for anything, will most likely lose it .

What is the "Valyrian religion" you speak of that was a part of Westerosi culture? Because none such existed.

And its pretty typical of people to present this concept in one way or another even though its definitely not worth a thread topic and this was done in a particularly poor/ text ignorant fashion; However there's a few examples particularly in feast and dance that lend some credence to their being at least at some juncture some actual reasoning and otherworldly knowledge behind the Faith. The faces of the seven gods sometimes seem to have a similar effect on people as the Weirwood faces, which they seem to be modeled after especially when in-carved. There's also an instance of somebody within the faith referencing the 7 pointed star and saying something about how a godly man is safe from demons and wights, a similar sentiment to Craster's which seemed to be involved with some actual magic.

And its always terribly ridiculous to see people go to lengths to dispute both the present existence and future possibilities involving "gods" in the series. We already see Bloodraven and Bran as borderline gods on earth as it is; im not sure why people think just because GRRM is agnostic/aetheist and he was once quoted as saying that we wont personally see the gods in series means that he's above having them exist/ have existed

[JonathanTheBold]

What is the "Valyrian religion" you speak of that was a part of Westerosi culture? Because none such existed.

And its pretty typical of people to present this concept in one way or another even though its definitely not worth a thread topic and this was done in a particularly poor/ text ignorant fashion; However there's a few examples particularly in feast and dance that lend some credence to their being at least at some juncture some actual reasoning and otherworldly knowledge behind the Faith. The faces of the seven gods sometimes seem to have a similar effect on people as the Weirwood faces, which they seem to be modeled after especially when in-carved. There's also an instance of somebody within the faith referencing the 7 pointed star and saying something about how a godly man is safe from demons and wights, a similar sentiment to Craster's which seemed to be involved with some actual magic.

And its always terribly ridiculous to see people go to lengths to dispute both the present existence and future possibilities involving "gods" in the series. We already see Bloodraven and Bran as borderline gods on earth as it is; im not sure why people think just because GRRM is agnostic/aetheist and he was once quoted as saying that we wont personally see the gods in series means that he's above having them exist/ have existed

bran and blood raven are human with god like powers there a difference.

[ChillyPolly]

But since we know Mel exists, and we have no evidence for 2, 3, or 4, I would say my conclusion

logic dictates we accept the first, until new evidence is presented.

still stands. And I'm perfectly ready to reevaluate when that evidence is presented. Perhaps since there are more possibilities, that chance is greater. But it hasn't happened yet.

Technically we don't know if Mel exists either. Every experience of her we have ever had has been filtered through someone's subjective perceptions. She could be a delusion. Is that a sane way to approach the text? No. But it is only a short step from the approach already being taken here. So let's get back to Rh'llor.

There is no doubt that Mel and others have the subjective experience of communicating and interacting with a force that they perceive as an outside entity. To which (I suppose) the response would be that subjective experience is not the same as objective reality. However, in this story, as in real life, subjective experience is the basis of all knowledge. Nothing whatsoever can be known without first being filtered through your subjective perceptions.

Technically, I cannot prove that any person or thing other than myself exists. But that way lies madness. To avoid madness, one needs a presumption of "externality". One must suppose, at least in the absence of contrary evidence, that things that appear to be outside entities, are in fact outside entities. Mel's subjective perception of Rh'llor as a being separate from herself, capable of doing things that she herself cannot do (or so she believes) does matter. Acceptance of externality requires a "leap of faith" but it is a leap that all sane people must take.

1. due to her own ability

2. come from R'hllor

3. come from other god/s

4. come from an undefined force, not necessarily divine.

The presumption of externality fairly allows us to eliminate #1. Mel believes she is not doing these things herself, and it is only fair to assume she knows what she is talking about, just as I feel it is fair to assume that I am not the author of every single post on this board. To conclude otherwise, without good reason, leads to solipsism and madness.

Having eliminated #1, that leaves 2, 3, 4.

#4 does not concern me because I don't know what "divine" means. I am only concerned with whether some sort of entity exists. It is fair to conclude it is in some sense supernatural because of the things that it does.

Multiple entities can be eliminated on the basis of Occham's Razor - that entities are not to be multiplied without necessity. This could be wrong; the simplest assumption is not always true; but it is the best presumption in the absence of evidence creating a necessity to go beyond it. So never mind about "gods" in the plural. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we will presume that "Rh'llor "is a single entity.

Once we decide he exists and that he is (pending further evidence) a single entity, it is irrelevant what we call him. He is "Rh'llor" because Mel calls him "Rh'llor". It's as good a name as any. Words and names are merely arbitrary symbols.

[JonathanTheBold]

Technically we don't know if Mel exists either. Every experience of her we have ever had has been filtered through someone's subjective perceptions. She could be a delusion. Is that a sane way to approach the text? No. But it is only a short step from the approach already being taken here. So let's get back to Rh'llor.

There is no doubt that Mel and others have the subjective experience of communicating and interacting with a force that they perceive as an outside entity. To which (I suppose) the response would be that subjective experience is not the same as objective reality. However, in this story, as in real life, subjective experience is the basis of all knowledge. Nothing whatsoever can be known without first being filtered through your subjective perceptions.

Technically, I cannot prove that any person or thing other than myself exists. But that way lies madness. To avoid madness, one needs a presumption of "externality". One must suppose, at least in the absence of contrary evidence, that things that appear to be outside entities, are in fact outside entities. Mel's subjective perception of Rh'llor as a being separate from herself, capable of doing things that she herself cannot do (or so she believes) does matter. Acceptance of externality requires a "leap of faith" but it is a leap that all sane people must take.

The presumption of externality fairly allows us to eliminate #1. Mel believes she is not doing these things herself, and it is only fair to assume she knows what she is talking about, just as I feel it is fair to assume that I am not the author of every single post on this board. To conclude otherwise, without good reason, leads to solipsism and madness.

Having eliminated #1, that leaves 2, 3, 4.

#4 does not concern me because I don't know what "divine" means. I am only concerned with whether some sort of entity exists. It is fair to conclude it is in some sense supernatural because of the things that it does.

Multiple entities can be eliminated on the basis of Occham's Razor - that entities are not to be multiplied without necessity. This could be wrong; the simplest assumption is not always true; but it is the best presumption in the absence of evidence creating a necessity to go beyond it. So never mind about "gods" in the plural. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we will presume that "Rh'llor "is a single entity.

Once we decide he exists and that he is (pending further evidence) a single entity, it is irrelevant what we call him. He is "Rh'llor" because Mel calls him "Rh'llor". It's as good a name as any. Words and names are merely arbitrary symbols.

if I'm understanding the basic gist of your argument anything that isn't proven to not exist exist? also you seem to have a backwards way of proving something exist we know Mel exist because more than one person experiences her exist and talking to them in the real physical world. lastly you still haven't drawn a real line between this person using magic to this god is causing it I could use that same argument for any number of random things I could say wargs get their magic from to much sunlight or purple dwarf faries and it would make as much sense as your argument

[kimim]

But since we know Mel exists, and we have no evidence for 2, 3, or 4, I would say my conclusion

logic dictates we accept the first, until new evidence is presented.

still stands. And I'm perfectly ready to reevaluate when that evidence is presented. Perhaps since there are more possibilities, that chance is greater. But it hasn't happened yet.

There are textual hints of forces outside these people. Six wolf pups of the right gender appear for the Stark kids. Why then? The Others appear, after not being seen for millenia. Why then? At some point in the story, the ability to do magic gets stronger. It could have something to do with the reappearance of the dragons; it could also have something to do with the reappearance of the Others. Whatever it is, it's an outside force which affects people capable of magic, and its alien nature can be seen in the comet which appears at about the same time.

[JonathanTheBold]

There are textual hints of forces outside these people. Six wolf pups of the right gender appear for the Stark kids. Why then? The Others appear, after not being seen for millenia. Why then? At some point in the story, the ability to do magic gets stronger. It could have something to do with the reappearance of the dragons; it could also have something to do with the reappearance of the Others. Whatever it is, it's an outside force which affects people capable of magic, and its alien nature can be seen in the comet which appears at about the same time.

that's a lot of assumptions it could be and I'd said say it's more likely that magic just exist and and fluctuates from time to tim. you claim something is making that happen that's fine but you need to prove that and not just assert it

[kimim]

that's a lot of assumptions it could be and I'd said say it's more likely that magic just exist and and fluctuates from time to tim. you claim something is making that happen that's fine but you need to prove that and not just assert it

Yes, those things can be coincidental. But then, they may not be; their timing is not coincidental.

All I'm asserting is that there may, or may not, be something "out there," in this particular universe. You can't erase either possibility, not easily or believably, anyway.

[ChillyPolly]

if I'm understanding the basic gist of your argument anything that isn't proven to not exist exist?

I'm saying that the fact that she perceives herself as communicating with an external entity, that appears to have intelligence, is evidence that she is in fact doing so ... just as the fact that I perceive myself as communicating with you is evidence of your existence.

Also someone or something is performing feats of such nature as to require intelligence. It seems reasonable to trust the Red Priests, like Mel or Thoros, when they say that they themselves are not really doing it. One may doubt anything, but no perception is more reliable than the sense of self.

also you seem to have a backwards way of proving something exist we know Mel exist because more than one person experiences her exist and talking to them in the real physical world.

I agree it is reasonable to conclude that Mel objectively exists, because it is reasonable to suppose that subjective visual and audable stimuli correspond to external reality.

Of course, the same logic can be applied to the subjective perceptions by which Mel concludes that the Red God exists; or the subjective perceptions by which I conclude that you exist.

lastly you still haven't drawn a real line between this person using magic to this god is causing it

If I know that I am not doing some act that seems by its nature to require intelligence, it seems reasonable to conclude that someone else is doing it. Red Priests are all convinced they do not do these things themselves. I think they would probably know.