• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Straw Man and God

PoetPhilosopher

Veteran Member
So someone sets up a Straw Man of the force or forces which they think started the universe, in their mind. A deity.

For this example, yes, we'll assume the person believes that a deity or deities set the universe into motion.

Okay, so this person may picture God as a human when they visualize Him, when who knows, God could be an energy or not even look human. The person visualizing may even get a few other things wrong about Him.

Now, this person visualizes who their God is, with the intent to praise what amounts to the original, the creator or creators.

Does this God hear their prayers? Even if many people are somehow getting His true nature wrong?
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
So someone sets up a Straw Man of the force or forces which they think started the universe, in their mind. A deity.

For this example, yes, we'll assume the person believes that a deity or deities set the universe into motion.

Okay, so this person may picture God as a human when they visualize Him, when who knows, God could be an energy or not even look human. The person visualizing may even get a few other things wrong about Him.

Now, this person visualizes who their God is, with the intent to praise what amounts to the original, the creator or creators.

Does this God hear their prayers? Even if many people are somehow getting His true nature wrong?

No, if this God is a the first unmoved mover and nothing else. If there is a God, it doesn't mean that this God cares for humans.
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
One you postulate that God is a straw man, that means that you can use any kind of straw you like to construct that image.
 

PoetPhilosopher

Veteran Member
One you postulate that God is a straw man, that means that you can use any kind of straw you like to construct that image.

That much is true, the slippery slope phenomena, but what if God is good but a bit of everything? Like, what if say, Hindus and Christians and Baha'is all worshipped the same God almighty, but that none of the beliefs are wrong, that God is all of these things, both Abrahamic and also being Vishnu, and more?
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
One you postulate that God is a straw man, that means that you can use any kind of straw you like to construct that image.

Well, in practice all claims of knowledge of what the world is as from God or natural are not possible and thus all cases of a straw man. It is in the brain of the one that believe in it.
There is no way with reason, logic, evidence, proof or what not to know what the world is in the ontological sense. That I have faith in God, doesn't mean that there is a God or if there is a God, it is the God I believe in.
The same applies to a naturalist. That someone believe in a natural world doesn't mean that the world is natural or if the world is natural, the situation is not that of Boltzmann Brain or something similar.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
That much is true, the slippery slope phenomena, but what if God is good but a bit of everything? Like, what if say, Hindus and Christians and Baha'is all worshipped the same God almighty, but that none of the beliefs are wrong, that God is all of these things, both Abrahamic and also being Vishnu, and more?

Ah, that God. In one sense there is no way to God, because God is unknown. Yet there are many ways to God, but only God knows the way and even a human without a belief in God, could come to God.
That kind of God? :)
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
So someone sets up a Straw Man of the force or forces which they think started the universe, in their mind. A deity.

For this example, yes, we'll assume the person believes that a deity or deities set the universe into motion.

Okay, so this person may picture God as a human when they visualize Him, when who knows, God could be an energy or not even look human. The person visualizing may even get a few other things wrong about Him.

Now, this person visualizes who their God is, with the intent to praise what amounts to the original, the creator or creators.

Does this God hear their prayers? Even if many people are somehow getting His true nature wrong?

Why are we assuming that whatever "set the universe into motion" is some kind of conscious agent or person? Furthermore, why are we assuming he's a he?
 

PureX

Veteran Member
So someone sets up a Straw Man of the force or forces which they think started the universe, in their mind. A deity.

For this example, yes, we'll assume the person believes that a deity or deities set the universe into motion.

Okay, so this person may picture God as a human when they visualize Him, when who knows, God could be an energy or not even look human. The person visualizing may even get a few other things wrong about Him.

Now, this person visualizes who their God is, with the intent to praise what amounts to the original, the creator or creators.

Does this God hear their prayers? Even if many people are somehow getting His true nature wrong?
Your question is incoherent as it presumes upon "God" that which it then presumed not to know: that God possesses ears (awareness).

People who conceptualize their God as being aware of them in the way that we are aware of each other, and that their God is therefor able to "hear" their prayers, do so because they want/need to believe that this is so. It's not about any of us knowing that God is as such, it's about our wanting and hoping that if God exists, that God is aware of our plight, and hears us when we ask for help. (And thereby has the power to provide it.)
 

PoetPhilosopher

Veteran Member
I'll explain what I mean, look at the top slider:

20191129_132847.png


The black heart to the left is someone believing one can only worship God by being super specific.

The red heart to the right means one can worship God by worshipping anything, including say, sponges.

I'm the red head in between.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
I'll explain what I mean, look at the top slider:

View attachment 34707

The black heart to the left is someone believing one can only worship God by being super specific.

The red heart to the right means one can worship God by worshipping anything, including say, sponges.

I'm the red head in between.
What about a pendulum model?
 

PoetPhilosopher

Veteran Member
Okay so, if you were to ask a Seventh Day Adventist which they saw to be correct for themselves, they would probably lean more toward the black heart. A Universalist would probably lean more toward the red heart.

If you want to say such an example is wrong or too narrow-minded, that's fine. But I was pretty much asking, what amount of correctness would be needed to accurately worship God, when talking our perceptions of Him?
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Okay so, if you were to ask a Seventh Day Adventist which they saw to be correct for themselves, they would probably lean more toward the black heart. A Universalist would probably lean more toward the red heart.

If you want to say such an example is wrong or too narrow-minded, that's fine. But I was pretty much asking, what amount of correctness would be needed to accurately worship God, when talking our perceptions of Him?
Again... pendulum...

Do you know what I mean? It's non-binary.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
Why are we assuming that whatever "set the universe into motion" is some kind of conscious agent or person? Furthermore, why are we assuming he's a he?

]Why are we assuming that whatever "set the universe into motion" is some kind of natural and non-conscious?

The correct question is: Why do we assume that is possible to know the ontological status of the origin of the universe or if there was one at all? If we are skeptical, as your question is, then why not start with the core epistemological question of can we know the ontological status of the universe itself?
 

PureX

Veteran Member
I'll explain what I mean, look at the top slider:

View attachment 34707

The black heart to the left is someone believing one can only worship God by being super specific.

The red heart to the right means one can worship God by worshipping anything, including say, sponges.

I'm the red head in between.
I think it depends on you (each of us) in the moment. If you need God to be absolute and dogmatic, just now, then by all means conceptualize God that way. If you need/want God to be an enigmatic, non-defined, omnipresence, then by all means, conceptualize God that way. And don't be concerned about the "flip-flop" between them because they are both just your chosen conceptualizations of God, they are NOT GOD ITSELF. As a human with limited knowledge, needs, and imagination, you are free to choose whatever conceptualization of God serves you best in the moment, and under your particular circumstances. This is actually one of the more wonderful and powerful aspects of the whole 'God' phenomena. It's our very ignorance that makes it so profound (and effective).
 
Top