God's Will
- Thread starter XxtraMannish
- Start date
This cannot be how a "god" is defined, nor was it the consideration by whatever ancient peoples. The Greeks weren't calling them gods because they could "change any experimental system we can devise." Not to mention that there are some alleged beings who are not considered "gods" but could hypothetically change any devised experimental system. And it doesn't necessarily have to be the case that one or more of these "gods" is messing with our experimental system. It could just be that our senses are imperfect and thus our experimental system falls short.
Right. Nobody has ever claimed that. At least, if anybody had, it is not a widely known claim. But seeing that we're talking about something that is considered myth, so-called supernatural claims can easily be made at the drop of a hat. What is important to note here is that even if it were claimed that the Loch Ness monster could change any experimental system we could devise, that wouldn't necessarily make him/her a "god." We just so happen not to commonly consider the Loch Ness monster as having some power over our experimental systems. But then, maybe he does and maybe that is why he is so elusive.
Think about it. There are more recent reportings of seeing the Loch Ness monster than there are for seeing Indra. So between the options of being a trickster and simply not being there, the Loch Ness monster seems more like a trickster. Whereas, on the other hand, Indra seems like he just isn't ever on earth anymore. I think this is a good case for the possibility that the Loch Ness monster has the ability to change any experimental system we can devise.
Of course, that doesn't mean we should call the Loch Ness monster a "god." But we could do so just as arbitrarily as we call many other beings gods.
Think about it. There are more recent reportings of seeing the Loch Ness monster than there are for seeing Indra. So between the options of being a trickster and simply not being there, the Loch Ness monster seems more like a trickster. Whereas, on the other hand, Indra seems like he just isn't ever on earth anymore. I think this is a good case for the possibility that the Loch Ness monster has the ability to change any experimental system we can devise.
Of course, that doesn't mean we should call the Loch Ness monster a "god." But we could do so just as arbitrarily as we call many other beings gods.
God exists and has chosen not to give us any proof of his existence? Tricky God! I think a disbelief in God is a logical starting point, not the opposite. You question whether one ought to STOP believing in God if evidence wasn’t provided supporting his existence. I disagree. It is my opinion that one should only START believing in God if such evidence is provided.
So then, did the Aztec God Huitzilopochtili jump into a fire, thus becoming the sun? Or is the sun under the control of Helios, a Greek God who emerges each dawn driving a chariot drawn by four fiery winged steeds? Or is the Sun actually Surya, The Hindu Sun God with three eyes and four arms, dashing across the sky in a chariot drawn by seven steeds? Then again, the Sun might be the servant Skirnir, sent across the sky to the underworld where he is tasked to persuade Gerd to marry the norse God Freyr. Some would believe (the Boshongo of the Bantu tribe of Central Africa), that their God, ‘Bumba’, had a stomach ache and vomited up the Sun. The list goes on....
These beliefs are clearly incompatible. Yet none of these take pride of place when considering the evidence supporting them – in every case, without exception, there is no evidence (including the famed Christian God). So then, which one should you believe in? You can’t believe in them all (as you were so quick to state in your previous post) for it would be FAR from inconsequential. You would be a walking contradiction and nobody would (or could) take you seriously.
Now, if you agree with my above argument (that the conflicting nature of Sun Gods from innumerable religions are incompatible, and thus they can’t possibly all exist), then how do you go about deciding which one is ‘real’? Toss a coin? Pull names out of a hat? Why did you choose your God over the others? Did you simply go along with what your parents brainwashed you into believing as a child? Does your weakness require faith, and it’s simply more socially acceptable to believe in the Christian God than the other, equally plausible, deities? If your God is the one true God, then you yourself are an atheist. The only difference between us is that I’ve taken the next step, adding one last God (yours) to my list of myths and fairytales.
An objective person wouldn’t label aliens as ‘Gods’ if they had the ability to alter the weather. Only theists have that inclination. ‘Oh, we don’t understand how they’re affecting the weather, they must be Gods!’ No, an inability to understand the internal workings of something leads the thinker to wonder ‘hmm, how DOES it work?’, starting them on the quest to true understanding. Not the ignorant ramblings of the religious, who are happy to jump to the defeatist stance of ‘we don’t know how it works, therefore a higher power is pulling the puppet strings’. What a cop out.
So then, did the Aztec God Huitzilopochtili jump into a fire, thus becoming the sun? Or is the sun under the control of Helios, a Greek God who emerges each dawn driving a chariot drawn by four fiery winged steeds? Or is the Sun actually Surya, The Hindu Sun God with three eyes and four arms, dashing across the sky in a chariot drawn by seven steeds? Then again, the Sun might be the servant Skirnir, sent across the sky to the underworld where he is tasked to persuade Gerd to marry the norse God Freyr. Some would believe (the Boshongo of the Bantu tribe of Central Africa), that their God, ‘Bumba’, had a stomach ache and vomited up the Sun. The list goes on....
These beliefs are clearly incompatible. Yet none of these take pride of place when considering the evidence supporting them – in every case, without exception, there is no evidence (including the famed Christian God). So then, which one should you believe in? You can’t believe in them all (as you were so quick to state in your previous post) for it would be FAR from inconsequential. You would be a walking contradiction and nobody would (or could) take you seriously.
Now, if you agree with my above argument (that the conflicting nature of Sun Gods from innumerable religions are incompatible, and thus they can’t possibly all exist), then how do you go about deciding which one is ‘real’? Toss a coin? Pull names out of a hat? Why did you choose your God over the others? Did you simply go along with what your parents brainwashed you into believing as a child? Does your weakness require faith, and it’s simply more socially acceptable to believe in the Christian God than the other, equally plausible, deities? If your God is the one true God, then you yourself are an atheist. The only difference between us is that I’ve taken the next step, adding one last God (yours) to my list of myths and fairytales.
An objective person wouldn’t label aliens as ‘Gods’ if they had the ability to alter the weather. Only theists have that inclination. ‘Oh, we don’t understand how they’re affecting the weather, they must be Gods!’ No, an inability to understand the internal workings of something leads the thinker to wonder ‘hmm, how DOES it work?’, starting them on the quest to true understanding. Not the ignorant ramblings of the religious, who are happy to jump to the defeatist stance of ‘we don’t know how it works, therefore a higher power is pulling the puppet strings’. What a cop out.