• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Who Created God?

Upchurch said:
Yep. I never said they reached the same conclusions. I said they were trying to explain the world around them. That they reached different conclusions only indicates that one or both of their methodologies were wrong. It says nothing of the reason why they created their system of beliefs in the first place, does it?
Click to expand...

You are correct, however your assumption that they created gods, is of course mere speculation.
 
Upchurch said:

Yep. I never said they reached the same conclusions. I said they were trying to explain the world around them. That they reached different conclusions only indicates that one or both of their methodologies were wrong. It says nothing of the reason why they created their system of beliefs in the first place, does it?
Click to expand...
Or, what if they happened to speak different languages and couldn't possibly agree with each other? Babel I say! ;)
 
frisian said:
You are correct, however your assumption that they created gods, is of course mere speculation.
Click to expand...
Really? Doesn't your article explicitly say,
The upshot is that man had created God(s) in his own image.
Click to expand...
(my emphasis)

Further, doesn't it also say that man continued to mold and change the god(s) to their own needs as in this passage
With the passage of time their beliefs in gods and concepts thereof continued to change until by the time of Moses they had become monotheists, by and large
Click to expand...
If you're trying to argue that man did not create god(s), I'd recommend reading your sources a little more thoroughly.
 
Iacchus said:
Or, what if they happened to speak different languages and couldn't possibly agree with each other? Babel I say! ;)
Click to expand...
Whatever. Different groups created different gods for different reasons, but for the purpose of understanding the world.
 
Upchurch said:
Really? Doesn't your article explicitly say, (my emphasis)

Further, doesn't it also say that man continued to mold and change the god(s) to their own needs as in this passage
If you're trying to argue that man did not great god(s), I'd recommend reading your sources a little more thoroughly.
Click to expand...

I only posted the article because it was from infidels and explained some of my understanding of the differences between Greek and Jewish thought. I don't agree with everything asserted in that article.

I am not interested in backing up a negative assertion, such as man did not create god(s).

Back to the article, the author is incorrect in asserting that the Bible validates other gods. Any reference to the sole God, is always accompanied by an Aleph Tav or another title such as YHVH. When speaking of those believing in many gods or other gods, the format of the text shows no such accompaniment, rather gives the name of the false god.
 
frisian said:
I am not interested in backing up a negative assertion, such as man did not create god(s).
Click to expand...
It would be a tough one to do, given the sheer quantity of gods out there and the lack of suitable alternative candidates. However, unlike some negatives, it is theoretically possible to show that mad did not create a specific god by showing that something else did.
Back to the article, the author is incorrect in asserting that the Bible validates other gods.
Click to expand...
What about other sources that validate other gods? The Bible isn't unique in proclaiming to be an authority on the nature of god(s) and the universe.
 
Upchurch said:
It would be a tough one to do, given the sheer quantity of gods out there and the lack of suitable alternative candidates. However, unlike some negatives, it is theoretically possible to show that man did not create a specific god by showing that something else did.
Click to expand...


Or as the Jews suggested, "God" revealed himself to them.




What about other sources that validate other gods? The Bible isn't unique in proclaiming to be an authority on the nature of god(s) and the universe.
Click to expand...

Other sources indeed suggest belief in other gods.
 
frisian said:
Or as the Jews suggested, "God" revealed himself to them.
Click to expand...
Don't all gods "reveal" themselves to their followers? I don't remember the greek myth where it tells how humanity creates Zeus and Company. ;) Part of creating gods includes creating how they've always been there and how they reveal themselves to us (through lightening and thunder, perhaps, or maybe floods).

Gods, as I understand it, often come from oral traditions (i.e. story telling). That was certainly true of the New Testiment, as it was put down on paper several generations after the events were supposed to have taken place. Anyway, what good is a story, if there isn't a back story to go along with it?
Other sources indeed suggest belief in other gods.
Click to expand...
What, do you suppose, would be indicitive of a source that conveyed true understanding vs. one that merely relayed stories?
 
Iacchus said:
Indeed, how can you have structure, without any structure to begin with? Not unless you have the teeniest, tiniest little seed (of intelligence) implanted into what which otherwise appears to be nothing. And yet come to find out we have an Eternal Father -- our Mother here being the Eternal vacuum -- and voila! We have the birth of the Material Universe.

Hey, ever wonder why it used to be considered a miracle when a woman gave birth? Perhaps because it reflected the birth of a new Universe? Indeed, and you know doubt can take this in more ways the one! ;)
Click to expand...

Look at the structure in a fractal. It is built upon no preexisting structure.

[Edited to add: It is also structure without any relevence or relation to any form of energy/time, etc whatsoever]
 
Upchurch said:
Don't all gods "reveal" themselves to their followers? I don't remember the greek myth where it tells how humanity creates Zeus and Company. ;) Part of creating gods includes creating how they've always been there and how they reveal themselves to us (through lightening and thunder, perhaps, or maybe floods).
Click to expand...


No, the myths don't suggest such, but knowing how Greek thought ascertains truth gives one insight into how the god concepts were formulated. The Greeks didn't believe in truth revealed, rather in humans positing truth of the gods and/or any truth in general.


Gods, as I understand it, often come from oral traditions (i.e. story telling). That was certainly true of the New Testiment, as it was put down on paper several generations after the events were supposed to have taken place. Anyway, what good is a story, if there isn't a back story to go along with it?
What, do you suppose, would be indicitive of a source that conveyed true understanding vs. one that merely relayed stories?
Click to expand...

The true would stand the test of time, I think. As our understanding in relation to truth isn't stagnant (I would hope), but evolves.
 
Jan said:
Trying to understand this, it seems to me as if Iacchus' explanation 3 and Anagnostopoulos' explanation 5b are essentially the same: some things just don't need an explanation why they are around.
Click to expand...
Wait! I never said the question of why there is anything at all doesn't need an explanation. I suggested it might not have an explanation. Need has nothing to do with it.

~~ Paul
 
frisian said:
The Greeks didn't believe in truth revealed, rather in humans positing truth of the gods and/or any truth in general.
Click to expand...
That isn't my understanding of Greek mythology. The Greeks believed that their gods interacted with them directly sometimes in physical form, sometimes through intermediaries, as jan pointed out. That's not too different than the Jews and the Christians, I believe.
The true would stand the test of time, I think. As our understanding in relation to truth isn't stagnant (I would hope), but evolves.
Click to expand...
True (no pun intended), but has any oral tradition stood the test of time and remained whole? None that I can think of.

So, are none of them indicitive of conveying true understanding about the world?
 
How about the type of energy dreams are made of? It's both intelligent (meaning us) and directly interacts with the energy of the Universe which, is part of the Collective Unconscious.
Click to expand...

That would be chemical and electrical energy. Last I checked Chemical and electrical energy is not intellegent by itself. I've never had a conversation with a battery. (unless it was attached to my cell phone) It has to be organized in some manner. Usually in concert with matter. Which is just another form of energy btw.
 
[aside] um...does anyone remember any case in which Iacchus actually did provide a definition when asked for one? I can't, but I don't particularly trust my memory.[/aside]
 
Iacchus said:
that is until the Big Bang occurred which, was the conversion of energy into matter.
Click to expand...


From my layman's understanding of the Big Bang theory, that is incorrect. The conversion was from whatever caused the BB, to an expanding universe of spacetime, which included energy. The energy condensed into matter many thousands of years after the BB. And saying things like 'until the Big Bang' ignores that there was no time, and thus no before.

(Again, I'm a layman and could be wrong, but I believe that saying the BB was the conversion of energy into matter is pretty off the beam.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom