Prove to me their's a god that your religion is true.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Yes, but a creationists view of evolution is this:

Micro: Two dogs say bulldog and alsation will create a poodle
Macro: Two dogs will create a giraffe.

Science has shown that both are impossible, but Science has also shown how micro and macro evolution are not only completely different to that, they are possible, and even observable.

i think it was Thomas Aquinas that said something like...since we have the concept of a God, then there must be a God.

Originally posted by -hh-
i think it was Thomas Aquinas that said something like...since we have the concept of a God, then there must be a God.

Meh, we have lots of concepts that haven't actually shown themselves to be at all factual, likely, rational or probable - the product of conceptual thinking at the time.

Why does the sun move + lack of scientific knowledge + mysticism = A sun moving God (who is very human in nature.)

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Meh, we have lots of concepts that haven't actually shown themselves to be at all factual, likely, rational or probable - the product of conceptual thinking at the time.

Why does the sun move + lack of scientific knowledge + mysticism = A sun moving God (who is very human in nature.)

Originally posted by FeceMan
That's trying to explain something, though.

True, but the question is - is the concept of a God/gods the direct result of a desire to explain something:

Little Timmy age 5: "Where does milk come from?"
(Ancient Asker: How does the sun move?)

Little Jimmy age 5: "A milk tree I bet."
(Ancient Thinker: It must be some sort of... giant man, carrying it like me or you carry a melon)

Or is it the result of a preheld concept being used to explain something:

Little Jimmy age 5: "Dad took me to the supermarket - it has all food and drink."
(Ancient Thinker: Gods have great power to do many great things. Great power.)

Little Timmy age 5: "I have been wondering where milk comes from, but if you say the supermarket has all food and drink then that must be where."
(Ancient Asker: Hmmm. I had been wondering how the sun moved, but you say a god has great power, so that must be how, a god does it.)

Because that seems to be what it is like. I am more inclined to think, from the history and anthropology I have seen it is the former rather then the latter. A supernatural explanation to a question that, at the time, correct answer was beyond them. After all, sufficiently advanced science and technology has throughout history seemed almost magical/divine to primitive societies who were explaining things with supernatural things rather then the actual causes.

Originally posted by -hh-
i think it was Thomas Aquinas that said something like...since we have the concept of a God, then there must be a God.

Regret beleives the same bullshit....why does there have to be a God just because the concept is there ? WE have a lot of concepts that don't exist in reality...

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
True, but the question is - is the concept of a God/gods the direct result of a desire to explain something:

Little Timmy age 5: "Where does milk come from?"
(Ancient Asker: How does the sun move?)

Little Jimmy age 5: "A milk tree I bet."
(Ancient Thinker: It must be some sort of... giant man, carrying it like me or you carry a melon)

Or is it the result of a preheld concept being used to explain something:

Little Jimmy age 5: "Dad took me to the supermarket - it has all food and drink."
(Ancient Thinker: Gods have great power to do many great things. Great power.)

Little Timmy age 5: "I have been wondering where milk comes from, but if you say the supermarket has all food and drink then that must be where."
(Ancient Asker: Hmmm. I had been wondering how the sun moved, but you say a god has great power, so that must be how, a god does it.)

Because that seems to be what it is like. I am more inclined to think, from the history and anthropology I have seen it is the former rather then the latter. A supernatural explanation to a question that, at the time, correct answer was beyond them. After all, sufficiently advanced science and technology has throughout history seemed almost magical/divine to primitive societies who were explaining things with supernatural things rather then the actual causes.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
WE have a lot of concepts that don't exist in reality...

Indeed.

Probably.

Concise.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Meh, we have lots of concepts that haven't actually shown themselves to be at all factual, likely, rational or probable - the product of conceptual thinking at the time.

Why does the sun move + lack of scientific knowledge + mysticism = A sun moving God (who is very human in nature.)

Yet one cannot speak of Bing Bang theory without defying the laws of physics.

We are NOT at the top of scientific knowledge and anyone who believes so is mistaken.

Us having concepts of things which are 'not true' are only so only in relations to what we know now.

300 years ago, the idea of someone chatting to someone over something called computer was irrational, illogical and impossible.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
True, but the question is - is the concept of a God/gods the direct result of a desire to explain something:

Little Timmy age 5: "Where does milk come from?"
(Ancient Asker: How does the sun move?)

Little Jimmy age 5: "A milk tree I bet."
(Ancient Thinker: It must be some sort of... giant man, carrying it like me or you carry a melon)

Or is it the result of a preheld concept being used to explain something:

Little Jimmy age 5: "Dad took me to the supermarket - it has all food and drink."
(Ancient Thinker: Gods have great power to do many great things. Great power.)

Little Timmy age 5: "I have been wondering where milk comes from, but if you say the supermarket has all food and drink then that must be where."
(Ancient Asker: Hmmm. I had been wondering how the sun moved, but you say a god has great power, so that must be how, a god does it.)

Because that seems to be what it is like. I am more inclined to think, from the history and anthropology I have seen it is the former rather then the latter. A supernatural explanation to a question that, at the time, correct answer was beyond them. After all, sufficiently advanced science and technology has throughout history seemed almost magical/divine to primitive societies who were explaining things with supernatural things rather then the actual causes.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Regret beleives the same bullshit....why does there have to be a God just because the concept is there ? WE have a lot of concepts that don't exist in reality...

Originally posted by lord xyz
Well, I'm letting you tell me all your oppinions on which religion I should pick and the proof of god not being an easy answer for everything.

i have to kill you first before you can see my god. 😈

Originally posted by FeceMan
Brilliant strawman, Holmes. Would you care to deduce anything else while you're at it, such as with which finger I'd salute you if you tried that argument in person?

Originally posted by lord xyz
Hey it's true. I'v been reading what creationists say and that's basically what they say when they refer to macro and micro evolution. Kent Hovind especially.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Yet one cannot speak of Bing Bang theory without defying the laws of physics.

We are NOT at the top of scientific knowledge and anyone who believes so is mistaken.

Us having concepts of things which are 'not true' are only so only in relations to what we know now.

300 years ago, the idea of someone chatting to someone over something called computer was irrational, illogical and impossible.

And that proves what? For some reason I don't actually believe I said anywhere we are at the top of scientific knowledge. So I fail to see the relevance of the statement there.

What I stated, and is a popular historical and total history (that is history that is inclusive of exterior disciplines from science and so on, since geology and biology affect history) is that much of the early mythology and religion was an attempt by ancient societies to explain, in ways they could understand, the natural world.

And as they lacked scientific knowledge they could attribute spirits or the like to natural events and phenomena. Now I am not sure how exactly this is unreasonable. Concepts, and their origin is not somehow indicative of them being drawn from something real or something near to real. From the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis onwards. It is telling that science advanced enough can seem like magic or divinity to those sufficiently primitive enough - but that doesn't make it so. Perspective is only part of the puzzle. The fact the concept of gods existed (and the concept itself varies widely, to widely) does in no way suggest gods themselves exist. A concept does not strictly rely upon a fact. It does not need to be derived from it. I mentioned the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis since understanding linguistic, symbolic language and the like is far more relevant to the origin of concepts, both fictional and otherwise, then to say "well, that concept is derived from something that is."

And back to not being on top of science. Of course we aren't again. Maybe we never will be. But if humanity had stopped long ago and happily decided "a God did it" was the answer to anything then chances are we would not be doing anything over the Internet or using computers. Chances are we would still be in mud huts. "God" is no answer, conceptually or otherwise when other testable avenues are available. Science advances thus - it is a weak argument, and always has been in my view - the "we don't know everything" - and we are never going to know everything if we allow intellectual corks to stop the flow. We can consider God as a possibility, but not as an absolute. And the concept of one deserves no higher consideration then any other concept or theory.

You are rather accurate given your perspective. Such a perspective does entirely ignore those that claim firsthand religious experience though.

Of course, and I can claim first hand experience with magic, or reincarnation or turning into a werewolf, yet none of that is really proof of anything. Ancient people saw wondrous things - they saw the sun move, plants spring from the ground, babies grow in the womb. They say storms and snow and flowers - that was for a long time their God. They wanted to know, and highly anthropomorphic deities seemed sensible. People with powers. Animals doing what they do naturally on a larger scale.

Are the myths real? Or are they allegories of natural things? Are they attempts to put the wondrous, due to lack of knowledge, into an understandable context?

Is it not telling that many of the ancient religions whose initial strength had been explaining the natural world weakened with the advent of science? Is it a coincidence the religions that arose in that same period were the ones that suddenly were presenting ideas about things that were again unknown? That later Roman Empire, the Rise of Christianity saw people turning from traditional pagan religions in favor of two classes -

1ST: The religions that provided some insight, some secret understanding of the worlds mysteries - hence the popularity of the Eastern Cults - the Cult of Isis, re imagined Bacchic ritual. People felt they were transcending with them, through them.

2ND: Those that offered explanation and hope - Christianity, Islam. Were did the world come from? The Christian God can tell us. Just as Egyptian priests once talked of why plants grew people were turning to the knew uncertainties and their answers.

I am not ignoring the personal experiences/claims, but they are not in question - the question I was looking at was:

Does the concept of something by necessity prove its existence?

I see no reason why it should. God/gods came into being with the conception of the concept, there is no reason to believe the concept is derived from a God and not the other way round. Divine figures, as concepts, have evolved tremendously as civilisation changed.

Originally posted by Regret
Concepts that most often have some basis in exaggerated reality. Show me one of these concepts that wasn't derived from some religious view or exaggerated factual experience.

The Evolution of God

Mesopotamian Civilization- earliest civilization to contain mythological dieties known to mankind....

Thier Gods:

An, the God of Heaven (sky)
Enlil, The God of the Air and Storms
Enki, the God of the Water and Fertile Earth
Ki, the Goddess of the Earth
Ashur, Main God of Babylon
Ninlil, goddess of Creation

Sin, the God of the Moon
Shamash, The Sun God
Ishtar, The Queen of the Heavens and Goddess of Love

How did these Gods and Goddesses form, I wondor ?

Well, let's take a look..shall we ?

They beleived that from the god Nammu, the Dark Abyss of nothingness, spawned the pantheon of gods that follow (similiarly, Greeks beleived that Chaos gave birth to Gaia, who gave birth to the rest of the Olympian Gods)

The Ancient Mesopotamians needed figures to represent the power of the united male and female through marriage. So each powerful couple, as time proceded, adopted a being of superiority who would validate thier marriage, which put them on a pedestal above all others.

They believed that Life existed in all forms, besides human, plant, and animal. They beleived the Sun was a god (like every other myth did), they beleived the Moon was a God, they beleived the Water was the substance of a God, etc.etc.etc.

They understood, or at least rationalized, that they could not come from nothing....nor did they beleive they created themselves, for they had no memory of such an event.

So, Nothingness, which they beleived existed first, was a "God" named Nammu...this being gave birth to the Earth and all other gods, who in turn created the human race.

Since the Sun, water, earth, trees, air, food, etc. was NECESSARY for their survival, they already developed the CONCEPT that they were at need...that they were dependent on forces external to themselves. For the sake of organization and power, they personified these forces into Gods.

It's really not that far-fetched Regret. IT's pretty self explanatory, and I am shocked that a smart guy like yourself cannot see that....well, hey, we all make mistakes....

Anyways, take a look at Sumerian and Greek Mythology as well....This post will be too long if I go into it, but I plan to create a thread dedicated to the Evolution of what we call God. It'll sure be fun !

^ Is it legal to use god and evolution in the same title?

Why wouldn't be? Evolution does not disprove God.

It might if you're American though...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
^ Is it legal to use god and evolution in the same title?

God has evolved, just like the rest of us have..."he" is no exception.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
And that proves what? For some reason I don't actually believe I said anywhere we are at the top of scientific knowledge. So I fail to see the relevance of the statement there.

What I stated, and is a popular historical and total history (that is history that is inclusive of exterior disciplines from science and so on, since geology and biology affect history) is that much of the early mythology and religion was an attempt by ancient societies to explain, in ways they could understand, the natural world.

And as they lacked scientific knowledge they could attribute spirits or the like to natural events and phenomena. Now I am not sure how exactly this is unreasonable. Concepts, and their origin is not somehow indicative of them being drawn from something real or something near to real. From the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis onwards. It is telling that science advanced enough can seem like magic or divinity to those sufficiently primitive enough - but that doesn't make it so. Perspective is only part of the puzzle. The fact the concept of gods existed (and the concept itself varies widely, to widely) does in no way suggest gods themselves exist. A concept does not strictly rely upon a fact. It does not need to be derived from it. I mentioned the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis since understanding linguistic, symbolic language and the like is far more relevant to the origin of concepts, both fictional and otherwise, then to say "well, that concept is derived from something that is."

And back to not being on top of science. Of course we aren't again. Maybe we never will be. But if humanity had stopped long ago and happily decided "a God did it" was the answer to anything then chances are we would not be doing anything over the Internet or using computers. Chances are we would still be in mud huts. "God" is no answer, conceptually or otherwise when other testable avenues are available. Science advances thus - it is a weak argument, and always has been in my view - the "we don't know everything" - and we are never going to know everything if we allow intellectual corks to stop the flow. We can consider God as a possibility, but not as an absolute. And the concept of one deserves no higher consideration then any other concept or theory.

Well firstly, people coud not explain 2 things -

Why am I here and What happens next?

Incidently, there is still no plausable explanation for those. Or rather ''scientific'' explanations, if you will.

Furthermore, scientifically advanced civilisations were initially strong religious believers - Persia, Babylon, Ancient Egypt....etc.