Disturbing Passage from The Bible

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

01/16/2007 12:19:12 PM · #676

For man to not believe in God(s), then he would have to believe that nothing exists greater than he.

sp

Message edited by author 2007-01-16 12:20:23.

thegrandwazoo

Nikon D750

01/16/2007 12:23:26 PM · #677

I am just a speck of carbon in a in a Universe much greater than I. God or no God, much greater exists than me.

01/16/2007 12:28:46 PM · #678

Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Originally posted by Flash:
My belief, is that if one could parse out all the fiction from religious ideology/history, then one could arrive at a basic true essence. An essence that was present in each religion since man's origin. If a similar essence is determinable to be consistent throughout man's hiistory, then a case for God's existence could be made.

If this were true, we might expect to see some consistency between religions (tending towards that essential truth). However, people disagree on the very fundamentals (such as how many gods are there?).

Actually I believe there is quite a bit of similarities between man's worship of God(s).
a. An essence greater than himself.
b. An essence with great knowledge.
c. An essence with the power of retribution.
d. An essence requiring some from of worship/sacrifice.

Have a look at this list, and look a few levels down into some of the religions. How any comparison can be made between, say, some of the African tribal mythologies, Celtic, Etruscan and Egyptian religions is beyond me. They are *so* different from modern Abrahamic religions that comparison (even in the broadest sense) is all but impossible in any meaningful way.

That said, you identify traits that we might nowadays associate with something called a "god". A "god" is fairly fundamentally significant and powerful. If we are talking about something less significant, weaker than us in important ways, we would not use the word "god". Instead, we have other words (imps, goblins, fairies, trolls, etc etc).

You have therefore confused the identification of common characteristics between various "gods" and coming up with a definition of what we mean by the word "god" - you have cause and effect the wrong way around.

01/16/2007 12:29:24 PM · #679

Originally posted by Flash:

since man does not know all, then there must be a god.

Just because we don't know something, there must be a god? That's like saying I don't know the secret formula for Coca-Cola, so it's obviously the work of a supernatural deity. Bizarre rationale.

Originally posted by Flash:

I believe it is too simplistic to say that man just "exists".

It seems to be OK for every other animal on earth, so why not humans? Religion arrogantly assumes that everything is "for" us and that we're somehow special in the universe even as we kill off other life and our own environment. Just because we want to have some noble purpose doesn't mean there is one. 70 million years ago, this planet was teeming with life (sans humans), and at the rate we're going any life still around 70 million years from now likely won't include naked mammals smart enough to ponder their existence, but too dumb to protect that existence. :-/

01/16/2007 12:29:58 PM · #680

Originally posted by Flash:

For man to not believe in God(s), then he would have to believe that nothing exists greater than he.

sp

Again, as a piece of logic, this is shockingly bad.

01/16/2007 12:33:20 PM · #681

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Flash:
since man does not know all, then there must be a god.

Just because we don't know something, there must be a god? That's like saying I don't know the secret formula for Coca-Cola, so it's obviously the work of a supernatural deity. Bizarre rationale.

Please do not confuse "man" with "a man". Quite different. A man may not know the secret formula for Coke, but another does, so therefore "man" has that knowledge.

01/16/2007 12:35:27 PM · #682

Originally posted by Flash:

A man may not know the secret formula for Coke, but another does, so therefore "man" has that knowledge.

At some point, NOBODY did. Fortunately, we have the capacity for discovery. ;-)

01/16/2007 12:36:51 PM · #683

Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Flash:
since man does not know all, then there must be a god.

Just because we don't know something, there must be a god? That's like saying I don't know the secret formula for Coca-Cola, so it's obviously the work of a supernatural deity. Bizarre rationale.

Please do not confuse "man" with "a man". Quite different. A man may not know the secret formula for Coke, but another does, so therefore "man" has that knowledge.

What happens when "man" acquires knowledge - does god retreat? Say, gravity - currently not fully understood, but we are building ever more sensitive instruments to detect gravitons and hope to see them in the next few years. God, or no God?

01/16/2007 12:48:48 PM · #684

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Originally posted by Flash:
For man to not believe in God(s), then he would have to believe that nothing exists greater than he.

sp

Again, as a piece of logic, this is shockingly bad.

The logic follows clear enough. In all things there is an order. Either the order is known or it is unknown to man. It being unknown does not make it without order. It only makes it unknown. If man was knowledgeable, then he would know what was knowable. Since man does not know all that is knowable, then man must be lower on the "order". Since man is lower on the order, then something must be higher.

For man to not believe in God, then he must believe he is the highest order. I personally find it odd that you would not agree with that.

01/16/2007 12:51:54 PM · #685

Originally posted by Flash:

If man was knowledgeable, then he would know what was knowable. Since man does not know all that is knowable, then man must be lower on the "order".

This is logic? I shake my head in disbelief (pun intended).

01/16/2007 12:56:58 PM · #686

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

What happens when "man" acquires knowledge - does god retreat?

Nope.

Man's purpose is to acquire knowledge. Knowledge that was, is and will be. In a thesis (1976) I likened it to a large waterway whereby all knowledge was contained in the main body of water and each person's existence was linked by a tributary to that great body of knowledge, siphoning off knowlegde at whatever rate the tributary would permit. Some men had large rivers as access while others had tiny streams.

However, no man, was capable of drinking the entire waterway.

In the Book Jonathan Livingston Seagull, the gull learned more at each successive elevation on the path to true enlightenment. In Herman Hess's Sidartha, the student discovered the truth of knowledge by sitting on the river bank watching that the same river was never the same. The water befor him was always new.

In this thread, much of the banter has been over the differences and the intended justification that since there are differences and unexplainables, then there cannot be a God(s). The contray I believe is true. The similarities should be sought out and the unexplainables turned over to that who truly owns them - God.

Message edited by author 2007-01-16 13:04:22.

01/16/2007 01:10:05 PM · #687

Originally posted by Flash:

The logic follows clear enough.

I am not so sure!

Originally posted by Flash:

In all things there is an order.

Is there? This appears to be a supposition, or an assumption. I think that it may be disproven by contrary example, as there are many things for which there is no apparent order: what is, say, the order of colours? What is the order of people on this planet? What is the order of plants? What is the order of the pencils in my pencil case?

The remainder of the quote falls apart when you realise that there is no "order". However, if we ignore this and assume that there is an "order" (say, ordained by god and unknown to us) we can pick apart the rest of your statement.

Originally posted by Flash:

Either the order is known or it is unknown to man.

Is this at a particular point in time? Things become known as people make discoveries (and equally become lost as people die without imparting unique knowledge). The state of man's knowledge is in constant flux, making it a poor identifier for the boundary of man/god.

Originally posted by Flash:

It being unknown does not make it without order. It only makes it unknown.

Although it also need not conform to any order that we are aware of.

Originally posted by Flash:

If man was knowledgeable, then he would know what was knowable.

There is a linguistic leap here. It would be true to say EITHER:

1) If man *knew everything knowable* then he would know what was knowable. OR

2) If man was knowledgeable, then he would know *enough to be considered knowledgeable*.

But your statement assumes that to be knowledgeable, you must know *everything knowable*. This is a non sequitur. It is also absurd given the constant state of flux of the state of man's knowledge.

Originally posted by Flash:

Since man does not know all that is knowable, then man must be lower on the "order". Since man is lower on the order, then something must be higher.

This assumes that "higher" on the "order" means "more knowledgeable". This appears to be a supposition or an assumption. If you are ordering the entire universe in terms of "knowledgeability", then you assume that the highest form of knowledge is *everything knowable*.

Since we have not observed anything that appears to know everything (indeed, we have evidence that not everything *can* be known at once without magical powers to bend the laws of physics), this is an absurd supposition (perhaps identifying the starting point to your reasoning: that there is a god from which the rest of your tortuous logic is extrapolated).

Originally posted by Flash:

For man to not believe in God, then he must believe he is the highest order. I personally find it odd that you would not agree with that.

Again, assumptions are made as to the nature of "order", what "highest" is, or that there cannot be anything in the universe between man and god.

Hopefully you will see why I have difficulty finding this to be persuasive.

Message edited by author 2007-01-16 13:20:02.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

01/16/2007 01:18:46 PM · #688

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

You have therefore confused the identification of common characteristics between various "gods" and coming up with a definition of what we mean by the word "god" - you have cause and effect the wrong way around.

I don't follow you. If you believe that there is no God, and man happened via evolution, then why did man begin establishing worship? The very fact that nearly every man group established worship of diety(ies), begs the question as to why? What was lacking in man that he accross the board felt compelled to establish worship. My dog does not feel compelled. The squirrel out back behind my house does not feel compelled. The crow flying above does not feel compelled. Why does only man, man throughout millenia find it necessary to worship? Could it be - because there is a God?

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

01/16/2007 01:22:29 PM · #689

Originally posted by scalvert:

... at the rate we're going any life still around 70 million years from now likely won't include naked mammals smart enough to ponder their existence, but too dumb to protect that existence. :-/

Perhaps that's why some prescient science fiction writers liked to refer to the human race by an abbreviated form of its official Latin binomial nomenclature: Homo sap ... : (

thegrandwazoo

Nikon D750

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

01/16/2007 01:25:18 PM · #690

Originally posted by Flash:

Fear.

01/16/2007 01:39:00 PM · #691

Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by legalbeagle:
You have therefore confused the identification of common characteristics between various "gods" and coming up with a definition of what we mean by the word "god" - you have cause and effect the wrong way around.

I don't follow you. If you believe that there is no God, and man happened via evolution, then why did man begin establishing worship? The very fact that nearly every man group established worship of diety(ies), begs the question as to why? What was lacking in man that he accross the board felt compelled to establish worship. My dog does not feel compelled. The squirrel out back behind my house does not feel compelled. The crow flying above does not feel compelled. Why does only man, man throughout millenia find it necessary to worship? Could it be - because there is a God?

You appear to use certain criteria to identify a pool of "gods" and then attribute some special meaning to the fact that the pool you selected share common characteristics.

I will give an example. Say, you thought that "god" meant a being that was 1) powerful and 2) knowledgeable and 3) big. You were given a list of belief systems involving worship:

1) Christianity (monotheistic god)
2) Irish pagan beliefs (leprechauns)
3) Norwegian pagan beliefs (trolls)
4) Egyptian belief in Imperial divinity (Emperor as god)
5) Bablylonian Religion (variety of gods, big and small)
6) Japanese shintoism (variety of major gods, 8,000,000 kami).

You might then pick out the following pool of "gods":

1) Christian
5) Babylonian - major gods only
6) Shinto - major gods only

You would not pick out the others, because they are not "gods" as you understand them (too small, not powerful enough, or not knowledgeable enough). On analysis of your pool of "gods", you would (unmysteriously) identify that each god was 1) powerful and 2) knowledgeable and 3) big.

If you were to compare all these belief systems, you would instead realise that mystical beings can sometimes be small, they might have limited knowledge, and they may not be very powerful. The fact that you label some of them "gods" and some not is irrelevant.

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

01/16/2007 02:34:48 PM · #692

Legalbeagle,

The question still lingers; why has/does man felt compelled to worship? One reply was fear. My dog fears thunderstorms. It does not cause it to organize with other thunderstorm fearing dogs and worship the thunderstorm god.

I believe that there is an inherant need in man to believ in something greater than himself. That could be because there is in fact something greater than himself, a creator who established the order of all things, or it could be a shortcoming of man. If it is a shortcoming of man, (to believe/worship), then it is a common shortcoming through history and accross many cultures.

thegrandwazoo

Nikon D750

01/16/2007 02:38:31 PM · #693

Originally posted by Flash:

Legalbeagle,

My dog fears thunderstorms. It does not cause it to organize with other thunderstorm fearing dogs and worship the thunderstorm god.

I am sorry I thought we were talking about man.

01/16/2007 02:48:25 PM · #694

What is the common thread that has repeatedly moved man to worship. Since the dawn of mankind, evidence exists that man worshipped his god(s). Why?

I am not aware of any monkey/ape groups that worship a God(s). If man evolved from monkey/apes, then what occurred in the transition that made him feel the need to worship? Why does only man (to my knowledge) worship God(s)?

This seems like a required premise to be answered before any "logical" refutation of God's existence could be assessed. It is not God who must prove his existence, it is the non-believer who must prove that he does not. I think that is why some are so driven to pounce on the inconsistencies between religions, as it offers up an "out" for believing.

01/16/2007 02:52:06 PM · #695

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Flash:
If man was in control of his universe, then he would not need God(s) to explain it's mysteries.

Who says man is in control of his universe? Why is it even "his" universe? Isn't it more likely that we're just along for the ride like every other animal?

[quote=thegrandwazoo]I thought we are talking about man [quote]

We are. However, if we are the same as all other life forms and have no particular purpose other than to exist in a random order of things, then why has man worshipped and continue to do so?

Message edited by author 2007-01-16 14:57:23.

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

01/16/2007 02:54:06 PM · #696

Originally posted by Flash:

My dog fears thunderstorms. It does not cause it to organize with other thunderstorm fearing dogs and worship the thunderstorm god.

...as far as you know. If a wolf organizes with other wolves and howls at the moon I'm not going to presume that they're worshipping it in some way, but neither can I say for sure that they're not. We don't have the benefit of wolf art and language to understand what (if anything) they're thinking. Other animals may very well wonder at the world around them (gorillas are known to admire a sunset), but we have an apparently unique ability to express our thoughts with language.

Louis

Nikon D800

01/16/2007 02:57:05 PM · #697

Originally posted by Flash:

The question still lingers; why has/does man felt compelled to worship?

But this question is perhaps not as relevant to the debate as you may think, especially because you have already arrived at the answer, and are presupposing that others should arrive at this answer as well. For example, a curious behaviour is not indicative of any one thing in particular. You have yourself offered an alternative explanation (a "shortcoming of man") which is as valid or ludicrous as any other explanation.

To fixate on a disconnected example as proof of a supposition is circular logic. (See above, "The Bible is God's word because the Bible says so.")

Louis

Nikon D800

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

01/16/2007 02:59:28 PM · #698

Originally posted by Flash:

It is not God who must prove his existence, it is the non-believer who must prove that he does not.

Actually, no. It is the believer postulating the existence of god that is burdened with the proof thereof.

01/16/2007 03:01:28 PM · #699

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by Flash:
The question still lingers; why has/does man felt compelled to worship?

But this question is perhaps not as relevant to the debate as you may think, especially because you have already arrived at the answer, and are presupposing that others should arrive at this answer as well. For example, a curious behaviour is not indicative of any one thing in particular. You have yourself offered an alternative explanation (a "shortcoming of man") which is as valid or ludicrous as any other explanation.

To fixate on a disconnected example as proof of a supposition is circular logic. (See above, "The Bible is God's word because the Bible says so.")

I have attempted to avoid "circular logic", due to your very example of the "bible proving God's existence - because it says so". I must confess that I have not made the headway I had hoped.