1. 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!

Featured "Big Gods Came After the Rise of Civilization, Not Before"

Discussion in 'General Religious Debates' started by Sunstone, Apr 8, 2020.

  1. MNoBody

    MNoBody Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2020
    Messages:
    2,758
    Ratings:
    +1,280
    thread reads like ...."Man...ponders navel.....creates 'God' in his own image"o_O
     
  2. GoodbyeDave

    GoodbyeDave Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2014
    Messages:
    2,734
    Ratings:
    +1,560
    Religion:
    Hellenic Polytheist
    One of the markers for civilisation is literacy — only the Incas lacked it. Since we have no history without literacy, we cannot know what happened for 95% of humanity's existence.

    They argue that belief in a god who lays down the law is a product of civilisation. Apart from the problem that I've mentioned, let's consider the world's high civilisations, using Spengler's list:
    Moralising god: Levantine, Western
    No moralising god: Mesoptamian, Egyptian, Chinese, Indian, Classical, Andean, Meso-American
    So much for their theory!
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Spartan

    Spartan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2019
    Messages:
    2,553
    Ratings:
    +289
    Religion:
    Christian
    Nope. The God image in Genesis is right in line with the Trinity, etc.

    In both Genesis 15:6 and Ephesians 2:8-9, righteousness is by faith in God.

    Genesis exhibits a triune-natured God. Here's several examples of that:

    Plurality in personal pronouns (such as "us" and "our") when used in reference to the Lord, provides scriptural evidence for the plurality of God. A good case in point is Genesis 1:26:

    "Then God said, 'Let us make man in our image, in our likeness,
    and let him have dominion over the fist of the sea, and over the birds
    of the air, and over the livestock, and over all the earth."

    Here, we see a conversation that is taking place prior to the creation of man. Who is this person or persons with whom God is conversing? First, this 'person' or 'persons' is able to communicate with God in His own realm of timeless eternity. Because man had not yet been created, He was not speaking to someone of earthly intelligence, but someone in the heavenly, supernatural and eternal realm.

    Secondly, this person or persons with whom God is communicating apparently has the same kind of creative ability as God ("Let us make"). This clearly implies a cooperative effort between God (Elohim - plural) and the person or person with whom God is speaking.

    And finally, the person or persons with whom God is speaking is comparable, or identical, with God ("Let us make man in our image, after our likeness").

    When confronted with this passage, skeptics often claim that God is speaking with angels. However, this explanation fails to address a number of problems. First, there is no indication found anywhere in the Bible that says angels can create life. Secondly, nowhere is it indicated that angels were ever made in the image and likeness of God. And finally, there is no indication from scripture that mankind was ever made in the likeness of angels.

    Just one more example. In Genesis chapter 11, God is looking down at man's attempt to build the Tower of Babel to make a name for themselves. In verse 7 God states:

    "Come, let US go down and confuse their language so they will not understand one another."

    Once more, the personal pronoun "us" is used as a reference to God. Note that in verse 11:5 it is "the Lord" that is referred to when "us" is later used ("The Lord came down to see the city").
     
  4. metis

    metis aged ecumenical anthropologist

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2013
    Messages:
    36,648
    Ratings:
    +17,838
    Religion:
    ecumenical & naturalistic Catholic
    OK, did God(s) create us humans of did us humans create God(s)?

    Tell me, how does one actually objectively test this out?

    My point: it's an unanswerable question even though probably most people have an "answer".
     
  5. ChristineM

    ChristineM "Be strong" I whispered to my coffee.
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2017
    Messages:
    39,091
    Ratings:
    +35,160
    Religion:
    None
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  6. columbus

    columbus yawn <ignore> yawn

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2014
    Messages:
    25,163
    Ratings:
    +16,319
    Religion:
    None
    It's not an unanswerable question.
    Ask a Muslim where Zeus from. Ask a Christian where Shiva came from. Ask a Jew where Thor came from.

    Religionists are experts at explaining that gods are fiction.
    Tom
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  7. metis

    metis aged ecumenical anthropologist

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2013
    Messages:
    36,648
    Ratings:
    +17,838
    Religion:
    ecumenical & naturalistic Catholic
    Which is why I put "answer" the way I did.

    To me, it's like trying to answer this question: "Are we part of a multiverse or is there just our own universe?". I'm sure a lot of people have "answers" for that, but what exactly are those "answers" based on?
     
  8. columbus

    columbus yawn <ignore> yawn

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2014
    Messages:
    25,163
    Ratings:
    +16,319
    Religion:
    None
    I don't have the slightest difficulty answering that question.

    "I doubt it, but I don't know or claim to know."
    As opposed to answers like "Well, in the Bible God said...."

    Tom
     
  9. ManSinha

    ManSinha Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2019
    Messages:
    1,189
    Ratings:
    +1,021
    @columbus

    I love reading your middle-of-the-road and (to me) rational posts

    However I shall put a phrase from the Gita strictly tongue in cheek - Sri Krishna has an answer to that question

    Gita 7:21

    yo yo yāṁ yāṁ tanuṁ bhaktaḥ śhraddhayārchitum ichchhati
    tasya tasyāchalāṁ śhraddhāṁ tām eva vidadhāmyaham

    Whatever celestial form a devotee seeks to worship with faith, I steady the faith of such a devotee in that form.


    Gita 7:22

    sa tayā śhraddhayā yuktas tasyārādhanam īhate
    labhate cha tataḥ kāmān mayaiva vihitān hi tān

    Endowed with faith, the devotee worships a particular celestial god and obtains the objects of desire. But in reality I alone arrange these benefits.
     
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  10. columbus

    columbus yawn <ignore> yawn

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2014
    Messages:
    25,163
    Ratings:
    +16,319
    Religion:
    None
    All that means is that the authors of Genesis weren't monotheistic.
    They believed in many gods.
    It's called henotheism, in modern English.
    The language you're reading Genesis in.
    Tom
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Useful Useful x 1
  11. Spartan

    Spartan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2019
    Messages:
    2,553
    Ratings:
    +289
    Religion:
    Christian
    Not monotheism. It's ONE GOD, manifested in three persons - referred to as the "God" of Israel.
     
  12. columbus

    columbus yawn <ignore> yawn

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2014
    Messages:
    25,163
    Ratings:
    +16,319
    Religion:
    None
    Correct.
    Neither Genesis nor Christianity are monotheistic.
    Tom
     
  13. Spartan

    Spartan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2019
    Messages:
    2,553
    Ratings:
    +289
    Religion:
    Christian
    Incorrect.
    Both are monotheistic according to scholars.
     
  14. TagliatelliMonster

    TagliatelliMonster Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2019
    Messages:
    11,729
    Ratings:
    +9,625
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Bare claims from religious lore don't refute or establish anything.
     
  15. TagliatelliMonster

    TagliatelliMonster Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2019
    Messages:
    11,729
    Ratings:
    +9,625
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Well, we have plenty of demonstrable, even observed, examples of humans creating gods.
    But we have no examples of any god(s) creating anything at all. Or examples of gods, full stop.

    It might be "unanswerable" if a requirement for the answer is absolute conclusive certainty.
    But in that case, pretty much everything is "unanswerable".

    But if the answer can be a tentative position based on the evidence, then the reasonable answer is that man creates gods and not the other way round, as that is the only thing that the evidence actually supports and suggests.
     
  16. TagliatelliMonster

    TagliatelliMonster Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2019
    Messages:
    11,729
    Ratings:
    +9,625
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Euh, no it's not like that at all, actually......

    While neither the supernatural nore the multi-verse can be directly tested, the difference is that the idea of a multi-verse is well motivated.

    Gods are motivated by human psychology (false positives, magical thinking, comforting emotions, etc).
    The multi-verse is motivated by science. In particular, the multi-verse is pretty much a prediction of inflation theory.

    It just so happens that when you work out the mathematical models, a prediction of a multi-verse naturally flows from that model. I'm not a physicist though and won't pretend to understand the math (or the theory for that matter).

    The important point though, is that these are not claims of the same category.

    One is a religious belief.
    The other is a scientific prediction.
     
  17. metis

    metis aged ecumenical anthropologist

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2013
    Messages:
    36,648
    Ratings:
    +17,838
    Religion:
    ecumenical & naturalistic Catholic
    Just because people may create god(s) doesn't in any way provide evidence there aren't any. In science, we don't deal with such matters since it's beyond our ability to observe or test.
     
  18. metis

    metis aged ecumenical anthropologist

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2013
    Messages:
    36,648
    Ratings:
    +17,838
    Religion:
    ecumenical & naturalistic Catholic
    "Motivation" and $5 can get you a coffee at Starbucks. "Motivation" is not "evidence".

    I agree, but just because it's compatible with q.m. doesn't mean it's actually true.

    I never posited that they're in the "same category", only that it is virtually impossible to provide evidence that there cannot be any deities.

    Thus, with this, you are not actually working out of a scientific paradigm :pwhereas I am:cool:, as we cannot use speculation as somehow being evidence.

    In science, it's best to say "I don't know" when we don't know.:emojconfused:
     
  19. Jayhawker Soule

    Jayhawker Soule <yawn> ignore </yawn>
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    Messages:
    40,754
    Ratings:
    +15,017
    Religion:
    Judaism
    But "religion" is not "God(s)" -- it is, at best, a perception, of God(s) and the codification of inferences derived therefrom. Your question strikes me as a poorly worded false dilemma.
     
  20. metis

    metis aged ecumenical anthropologist

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2013
    Messages:
    36,648
    Ratings:
    +17,838
    Religion:
    ecumenical & naturalistic Catholic
    One could take that tact if they want to, but my question and point still stands, namely that we do not have evidence that there is or are not any deities, and what one may believe one way or the other is not evidence. :shrug:
     
Loading...