Where did God come from?

Science
Theology
Society

(John Harshman) #21

Was that a reply to something other than my comment? If not, I don’t understand it.


#22

This statement does not cheapen past achievements while still allowing for excitement in the future. I like it. However, I would still argue that the story is anything but simple.


(Ashwin S) #23

Yes, statements like “he exists and his name is Marduk” are complicated…
However the statement “he exists” is not the same.

Nice story by the way…


(John Harshman) #24

I am unable to interpret these exceedingly cryptic statements. If they are statements.


(Ashwin S) #25

Nothing cryptic about it… the claim God exists is different from the claim that God exists and his name is Marduk.
The former is a much simpler claim than the latter…


(John Harshman) #26

Don’t be disingenuous. “God” in context means YHWH and nothing else. Marduk and Zeus are different entities. And they’re entities that I presume you would agree are fictional.


(Ashwin S) #27

I am not being disingenuous.
I am a person who moved from being an athiest to a theist based on the conviction that a designer/creator exists. I didn’t even know the name YHWH when I first came to the conclusion that God exists.
There are several examples of people that conclude just from observing nature that God exists. Antony flew is a good example. Such a conclusion does not lead to the conclusion that God is YHWH… or Marduk.

It’s just a conclusion that God exists and some inferences about his nature from the same.


(John Harshman) #28

And yet you are now a Christian, right? The Christian God is most certainly not Marduk. And when people on this web site say “God”, they never mean Marduk. Let’s remember that Marduk is a member of a polytheistic pantheon. He happens to be the chief god and a sort of creator god too, so you might want to equate him in some dim sense sense with “God”. But he isn’t. Still, would you be happier if I substituted Astarte or Freyr in my original question? Neither of them would probably be confused with “God”, even by you.

Here:
Michael: Why is “he exists” more complicated than “he was made up”?

Me: Try substituting Astarte or Freyr in that question and see what you think.

The point is that Michael, you, and just about everyone here probably think that most gods were indeed made up and that it really is simpler to believe they were made up than that they exist. There’s only one god for which you would, I suppose, think otherwise.


(Ashwin S) #29

How is this argument relevant?
How does whether any religion know who God is have anything to do with whether he exists or not?
It’s possible for all religions to be wrong and God to still exist…
And it’s possible for only one to be true…
A particular religious understanding of God being false doesn’t invalidate all understandings.
You must realise your claim is illogical right?


(John Harshman) #30

No, and you have managed to ignore my actual claim in favor of some trivial notion that we’re just talking about names.


(Ashwin S) #31

You are the who brought names into it. @Michael_Callen asked

And you responded with names… you assumed that Micheal was arguing for a specific God of a specific religion.


(John Harshman) #32

But they aren’t just names. They’re names representing particular entities that are different from the one Michael meant, and yes, he was arguing for the Christian God of the Christian religion. As you do at all times other than this.


(Dr. Patrick Trischitta) #33

You are at the complicated stage of your career. In a few decades, you will converge to the simple for such things as the meaning of life, the expansion rate of the universe, and the air speed velocity of a sparrow.


(Daniel Ang) #34

I mostly agree with @Ashwin_s that the specific properties of god(s) under discussion are not too relevant. The two hypotheses in question are God vs. no-God. God could be the God of Christianity, Islam, Zeus or Marduk, as long as they have the requisite properties - powerful enough to be the creator God and interested in communicating with his creation(s). This is similar to how there can be disagreements in the details of evolution but there’s no disagreement that things evolved in some way.


#35

Zeus wasn’t thought of as Creator, merely part of creation. :slight_smile:

Don’t know much about Marduk though.


(Dr. Patrick Trischitta) #36

But it seems like every person professes faith “in the one true God” By saying this they are making the pronouncement that all the other Gods are false Gods. So isn’t everyone atheistic to everyone else’s God but their own? Atheist just don’t believe in one more God than you do -your’s.


(S. Joshua Swamidass) #37

That is a narrow linear way of thinking about this. You really need to read CS Lewis: Till We Have Faces.

@Patrick, if I buy you a book by CS Lewis, would you read it? I’d suggest The Great Divorce. If I bought one fo you, woudl you read it?


(Dr. Patrick Trischitta) #38

You don’t have to buy it for me, as I can get it and read it. Thanks for the offer though. Sure, I’ll get it and read it. It is about a bus ride between hell and heaven, isn’t it? I think I was on that bus once from Reno to Las Vegas or was it from the Bronx after a Yankee Game to New Jersey. :sunglasses:


(Guy Coe) #39

This thread puts a whole new spin on my understanding of the phrase, “let sleeping dogs lie.” Dogs practicing unconscious deceitful speech while in a dream state? Say it isn’t so! Maybe it’s just time for another nap, for those who prefer to think this way? We’ll try to wake you again later; deal? Lewis’ book might be more worth staying awake for than you’d think!


(Daniel Ang) #40

I don’t think this line of argumentation makes sense. To make an analogy, there’s a fundamental difference between people disagreeing on which system of government makes the most sense, versus people who believe that all forms of government are illegitimate.