Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8937 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-19-2019 3:16 PM
30 online now:
Chatting now:  , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Newest Member: ssope
Happy Birthday: AdminPhat
Post Volume:
Total: 861,793 Year: 16,829/19,786 Month: 954/2,598 Week: 200/251 Day: 29/59 Hour: 5/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1011121314
15
Author Topic:   Can God create another God?
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 211 of 224 (483895)
09-24-2008 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by Open MInd
09-18-2008 12:39 AM


Re: Good and Evil
Therefore, I think that these stories prove that the Torah was not written as a hoax.

However it remains possible that such texts were written by the deluded for the deluded :D


This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Open MInd, posted 09-18-2008 12:39 AM Open MInd has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by Open MInd, posted 09-25-2008 2:09 PM Straggler has not yet responded

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 2373 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 212 of 224 (483925)
09-24-2008 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by Open MInd
09-17-2008 12:48 AM


Re: Good and Evil
quote:
First of all, since most religions in the world are completely false, it is expected that you would find a pattern among religions.

Come again?

How did you get there? Just because they share patterns doesn't make them false. They could be all right as well based on that logic.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by Open MInd, posted 09-17-2008 12:48 AM Open MInd has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by Open MInd, posted 09-25-2008 2:04 PM obvious Child has responded

  
Open MInd
Member (Idle past 3920 days)
Posts: 261
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 213 of 224 (483986)
09-25-2008 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by obvious Child
09-24-2008 10:24 PM


Re: Good and Evil
I have come to the conclusion that most religions are false from the fact that most religions are mutually exclusive. Polytheism and Monotheism for example cannot both be correct because they are mutually exclusive. This is only one small example. Most religions teach themselves as truth and all others as false. Therefore, most religions must be false. Since most religions are false, most religions will look false. This look of falsehood is the pattern that can be picked up in most religions. Therefore, it is not logical to extrapolate from most religions to all religions because most religions are false.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by obvious Child, posted 09-24-2008 10:24 PM obvious Child has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by Huntard, posted 09-25-2008 4:13 PM Open MInd has responded
 Message 223 by obvious Child, posted 09-26-2008 5:35 PM Open MInd has not yet responded

    
Open MInd
Member (Idle past 3920 days)
Posts: 261
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 214 of 224 (483987)
09-25-2008 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by Straggler
09-24-2008 6:33 PM


Re: Good and Evil
That is a possibility of course. However, I think it is not very probable. I would like you to try to give me a detailed explanation of exactly how you think these deluded people started this religion for deluded people. Just saying that they were deluded and the books were a collection of stories from previous generations, is not sufficient. You have not given a mechanism for the beginning of the religion. You have already ruled out the hoax hypothesis. Please explain how the religion started and who wrote the texts that are around today.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Straggler, posted 09-24-2008 6:33 PM Straggler has not yet responded

    
Open MInd
Member (Idle past 3920 days)
Posts: 261
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 215 of 224 (483988)
09-25-2008 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by rueh
09-24-2008 3:05 PM


Re: Good and Evil
The advances in science have nothing to do with human logic. I am saying that the flood story would have been completely useless in a religion that was a complete hoax. Remember, most people today do not even believe that the great flood ever happened. Why would an ancient religion add such a thing into the text if it did not happen? They were not trying to explain any natural occurrence. They were merely adding a story that would have been completely useless. I think this would have been completely useless in any sort of hoax, and it would only be detrimental to the crafty artists of the religion. My argument has nothing to do with the advances in science, but with basic human logic.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by rueh, posted 09-24-2008 3:05 PM rueh has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by rueh, posted 09-26-2008 7:50 AM Open MInd has not yet responded

    
Huntard
Member (Idle past 553 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 216 of 224 (483991)
09-25-2008 4:13 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by Open MInd
09-25-2008 2:04 PM


Re: Good and Evil
Open MInd writes:

I have come to the conclusion that most religions are false from the fact that most religions are mutually exclusive. Polytheism and Monotheism for example cannot both be correct because they are mutually exclusive. This is only one small example. Most religions teach themselves as truth and all others as false. Therefore, most religions must be false. Since most religions are false, most religions will look false. This look of falsehood is the pattern that can be picked up in most religions. Therefore, it is not logical to extrapolate from most religions to all religions because most religions are false. I have come to the conclusion that most religions are false from the fact that most religions are mutually exclusive. Polytheism and Monotheism for example cannot both be correct because they are mutually exclusive. This is only one small example. Most religions teach themselves as truth and all others as false. Therefore, most religions must be false. Since most religions are false, most religions will look false. This look of falsehood is the pattern that can be picked up in most religions. Therefore, it is not logical to extrapolate from most religions to all religions because most religions are false.


Or they are all wrong.

That is a possibility of course. However, I think it is not very probable. I would like you to try to give me a detailed explanation of exactly how you think these deluded people started this religion for deluded people. Just saying that they were deluded and the books were a collection of stories from previous generations, is not sufficient. You have not given a mechanism for the beginning of the religion. You have already ruled out the hoax hypothesis. Please explain how the religion started and who wrote the texts that are around today.

Here's my attempt:

There were these rulers see, and they were all going about their business like they always do, ruling their peoples and all that. When suddenly, one of them had a great idea! "What if we got these people more under our control." He said. "Well blimey, that'd be nice wouldn't it" Another one responded. "But how would we go about doing that?" a third asked. "Well, look here" said the first one again "how about, we make up these stories see, about how there's this guy right, and he created everything. We'll call him God, and make him a right bastard, so the people will be scared of him. Then, we tell them that when they don't follow this guys rules, then after they die, they'll be tortured for all eternity. But when they do follow his rules, they'll be happy ever after". "How's that gonna give us any more control?" the second one inquired. The first one sighed and said: "Because WE will make those rules see, and then we write these silly stories for them, and tell them all this is true, and we'll make them all vague and stuff, so we can always interpret them to whatever the situation requires. That should put a lid on any rebellion or anything these dumb peasants want to start. And since we are the only ones who can read or write, they'll just have to take our word for it, or face the wrath of God!" And then they all laughed an evil laugh and were very smug and content with themselves.

How's that for a nice little story? And even better, it's plausible.

The advances in science have nothing to do with human logic. I am saying that the flood story would have been completely useless in a religion that was a complete hoax. Remember, most people today do not even believe that the great flood ever happened. Why would an ancient religion add such a thing into the text if it did not happen? They were not trying to explain any natural occurrence. They were merely adding a story that would have been completely useless. I think this would have been completely useless in any sort of hoax, and it would only be detrimental to the crafty artists of the religion. My argument has nothing to do with the advances in science, but with basic human logic.

As by my explanation above, these stories served to keep them under control. Tell them that if they don't listen God will come down and kill them can be a rather effective way, especially when you got people who don't understand the slightest thing about the natural world. To us today such stories are completely ridiculous because we understand the natural world quite well, and therefore know a global flood could never have happened.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by Open MInd, posted 09-25-2008 2:04 PM Open MInd has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 217 by Open MInd, posted 09-25-2008 7:49 PM Huntard has responded

    
Open MInd
Member (Idle past 3920 days)
Posts: 261
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 217 of 224 (484031)
09-25-2008 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by Huntard
09-25-2008 4:13 PM


Re: Good and Evil
Huntard writes:

Or they are all wrong.

This is always a possibility. However, I was pointing out that you cannot make this conclusion from extrapolating from most religions. In fact, it is expected that most religions would be wrong.

Huntard writes:

Here's my attempt:

There were these rulers see, and they were all going about their business like they always do, ruling their peoples and all that. When suddenly, one of them had a great idea! "What if we got these people more under our control." He said. "Well blimey, that'd be nice wouldn't it" Another one responded. "But how would we go about doing that?" a third asked. "Well, look here" said the first one again "how about, we make up these stories see, about how there's this guy right, and he created everything. We'll call him God, and make him a right , so the people will be scared of him. Then, we tell them that when they don't follow this guys rules, then after they die, they'll be d for all eternity. But when they do follow his rules, they'll be happy ever after". "How's that gonna give us any more control?" the second one inquired. The first one sighed and said: "Because WE will make those rules see, and then we write these silly stories for them, and tell them all this is true, and we'll make them all vague and stuff, so we can always interpret them to whatever the situation requires. That should put a lid on any rebellion or anything these dumb peasants want to start. And since we are the only ones who can read or write, they'll just have to take our word for it, or face the wrath of God!" And then they all laughed an evil laugh and were very smug and content with themselves.

How's that for a nice little story? And even better, it's plausible.

This a very nice story, and I can see it working for other religions. However, this story is not indicated through Judaism. First of all, the Torah says nothing about a punishment in an afterlife. Second of all, the Torah does not say anything about giving money s or listening to all of their decrees. In fact, one is not supposed to listen to anyone who contradicts the Torah. Furthermore, some commandments are counterintuitive for a normal king. One example is the resting of the land every seven years. Considering the idea that most societies were based on agriculture, this decree would potentially be detrimental to the kingdom. In fact most of the laws in the Torah seem to be of no benefit to any king.

Now having given you some problems with your attempt, what happened after these kings devised this beautiful plan. Please give me their next step, and try to tie it all together with Judaism.

Huntard writes:

As by my explanation above, these stories served to keep them under control. Tell them that if they don't listen God will come down and can be a rather effective way, especially when you got people who don't understand the slightest thing about the natural world. To us today such stories are completely ridiculous because we understand the natural world quite well, and therefore know a global flood could never have happened.

I assume that you are trying to say that the story of the global flood was inserted into the text in order to show how G-d can destroy people who disobey him. Unfortunately, just by making up a story about what G-d has done in the past does not add any fear into the people because they were not aware of such a story in the first place. Also, why did they have to make such a far fetched story? It would have been fine to just give a story about how G-d killed people by bringing disease(something that they would believe easier, be able to relate to , and be more scared of). If the people were skeptical they would not have believed the flood story, and this would make their whole plan look stupid. And if the people were just dumb, it would be sufficient to just warn about future misfortunes that would befall sinners. Just as a side note, after the flood G-d promised never to bring a flood of that nature ever again. What was the meaning of this? Also, since the king hypothesis seems to describe the kings as sort of intelligent, how is it possible that these people were the only intelligent ones in the whole country? Think about these questions, and get back to me on your further explanations.

Edited by Open MInd, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Huntard, posted 09-25-2008 4:13 PM Huntard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by Huntard, posted 09-26-2008 12:40 PM Open MInd has not yet responded

    
Open MInd
Member (Idle past 3920 days)
Posts: 261
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 218 of 224 (484033)
09-25-2008 8:02 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by Blue Jay
09-24-2008 5:16 PM


Re: Good and Evil
I merely point out that the flood story seemingly adds nothing to the religion, and it is therefore not written there as an intended false statement. It does not take a genius to realize that this story would not be accepted by anyone. Advances in science are not required to show that this story is far fetched. Even a really dumb person would not insert this seemingly useless story into a hoax. Therefore, I conclude that the Torah could not have been written as a hoax, that was intended to start a false religion.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by Blue Jay, posted 09-24-2008 5:16 PM Blue Jay has not yet responded

    
Open MInd
Member (Idle past 3920 days)
Posts: 261
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 219 of 224 (484034)
09-25-2008 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by Agobot
09-24-2008 8:21 AM


Re: A war against God - do we stand a chance?
Agobot writes:

We've earlier come to the logical conclusion that God is not and can not be omnipotent.

According to your definition this is correct because G-d cannot in any way limit Himself.

Agobot writes:

So what does he have in his arsenal?

One thing in this world that is not physical is the human mind. G-d can easily take control of all the minds in the world and cause everyone to stop the war on their own. You would not even realize that G-d has intervened. Just as a side note the world only exist every single instant because of the will of G-d. If you would go to war so to speak, all G-d has to do is will the world to no longer exist. This is not physical either.

Agobot writes:

Do we stand a chance?

Not even close! You are nothing but a creation that can't even fight the common cold.

Edited by Open MInd, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Agobot, posted 09-24-2008 8:21 AM Agobot has not yet responded

    
Legend
Member (Idle past 3264 days)
Posts: 1226
From: Wales, UK
Joined: 05-07-2004


Message 220 of 224 (484063)
09-26-2008 4:07 AM
Reply to: Message 208 by Agobot
09-24-2008 8:21 AM


Re: A war against God - do we stand a chance?
What kind of chance do we stand in an all-out war against a God that's not omni-powerful?

It all depends on whether God plays his first team or not. If Michael and Gabriel sit it out on the bench I reckon we might just edge it, otherwise we'll be Cherubed to oblivion.


"We must respect the law, not let it blind us away from the basic principles of fairness, justice and freedom"
This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Agobot, posted 09-24-2008 8:21 AM Agobot has not yet responded

  
rueh
Member (Idle past 1919 days)
Posts: 382
From: universal city tx
Joined: 03-03-2008


Message 221 of 224 (484072)
09-26-2008 7:50 AM
Reply to: Message 215 by Open MInd
09-25-2008 2:21 PM


Re: Good and Evil
The advances in science have nothing to do with human logic
Agreed, however we have a different perspective on the world that they did not. human logic applied to a world veiw where these occurances seem possible, could very well lead one to believe that they occured. However with our advancement of the sciences we can easily see the areas that make this story inaccuaret or impossible.
Remember, most people today do not even believe that the great flood ever happened. Why would an ancient religion add such a thing into the text if it did not happen? They were not trying to explain any natural occurrence.
But we do know that the flood story is more than likely a carry over from the sumarians, so it is entirely possible they borrowed from a story that was already known to people and changed the names in order to try associate this with their own religion. We see the same thing occur when christianity blended with the religions from northern Europe. Inorder to transition people into believing what you believe you borrow their stories and traditions and change the names so it aligns with your beliefs.


'Qui non intelligit, aut taceat, aut discat'
The mind is like a parachute. It only works when it is open.-FZ
This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Open MInd, posted 09-25-2008 2:21 PM Open MInd has not yet responded

  
Huntard
Member (Idle past 553 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 222 of 224 (484091)
09-26-2008 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by Open MInd
09-25-2008 7:49 PM


Re: Good and Evil
Open MInd writes:

This is always a possibility. However, I was pointing out that you cannot make this conclusion from extrapolating from most religions. In fact, it is expected that most religions would be wrong.


Without any evidence to support ANY religion, one should expect them all to be wrong.

This a very nice story, and I can see it working for other religions. However, this story is not indicated through Judaism.

Of course it's not indicated through Judaism, would be a pretty shitty plan if they told them up front they were hoaxing them, now wouldn't it.

First of all, the Torah says nothing about a punishment in an afterlife.

Really?

Deuteronomy 32:22:

quote:
For a fire is kindled in mine anger, and shall burn unto the lowest HELL, and shall consume the earth with her increase, and set on fire the foundations of the mountains.

What's that nasty word Hell doing there then?

Second of all, the Torah does not say anything about giving moneys or listening to all of their decrees.

I never said they should give money, I said this was a system to maintain control over the people. And remember, these people couldn't read or write, so the rulers were pretty much free to tell them anything they wanted, not like they could check.

In fact, one is not supposed to listen to anyone who contradicts the Torah.

Which is a perfect way of keeping control, simply say that whoever doesn't agree with you is contradicting the Torah, and you win. Again, the normal people couldn't check if their rulers spoke the truth about the Torah.

Furthermore, some commandments are counterintuitive for a normal king.One example is the resting of the land every seven years. Considering the idea that most societies were based on agriculture, this decree would potentially be detrimental to the kingdom.

Actually, any farmer knows you shouldn't keep on harvesting and planting crops year in year out. This exhausts the ground and pretty soon all your crops are worthless, so this is actually a very good thing. This of course doesn't mean NO land will be used once every seven years, one could easily set up a rotation system ensuring every year there is a harvest, while still keeping each seperate patch of land empty once every seven years.

In fact most of the laws in the Torah seem to be of no benefit to any king.

Since I pointed out the one example you gave is not actually bad for a kingdom, excuse me if I don't take your word for it. Could you give some more examples?

Now having given you some problems with your attempt, what happened after these kings devised this beautiful plan. Please give me their next step, and try to tie it all together with Judaism.

First of all, I refuted your "problems".
Second, the next step is obvious, creating the Torah, of course. Most likely this is done by mixing known folk tales with newly invented bits that say what the rulers want them to say. As for how to tie it into Judaism, well, like I said, they used bits of old folk tales believed in by the then Jews, and mixed them up with new bits.

I assume that you are trying to say that the story of the global flood was inserted into the text in order to show how G-d can destroy people who disobey him. Unfortunately, just by making up a story about what G-d has done in the past does not add any fear into the people because they were not aware of such a story in the first place.

They probably heard similar stories from the ancient Sumerians, the epic of Gilgamesh comes to mind. Now, tell them god did this because he was pissed off with people, and the system of control is established.

Also, why did they have to make such a far fetched story?

To make it seem this god fellow can do whatever he pleases, but if they follow the Torah, i.e. their rulers' commands, there's still a chance god will rescue them.

It would have been fine to just give a story about how G-d killed people by bringing disease(something that they would believe easier, be able to relate to , and be more scared of).

Well yes, however, by telling them god wiped out the ENTIRE earth, because he was unhappy with creation as a whole, implements a system of social control. Like, when your neighbour does something bad, you tell on him, so that the sin might be caught on time before spreading, and pissing off god enough to wipe out the earth once more.

If the people were skeptical they would not have believed the flood story, and this would make their whole plan look stupid.

Sceptical? Peasants in the bronze age sceptical? Not about the natural world they're not. These people knew NOTHING about the natural world. Not why it rains, not where the wind comes form, not where thunder and lightning come from, absolutely nothing.

And if the people were just dumb, it would be sufficient to just warn about future misfortunes that would befall sinners.

As I pointed out, telling it in this way ensured some system of social control. It also shows that god's not afraid of using his powers against you if you piss him off.

Just as a side note, after the flood G-d promised never to bring a flood of that nature ever again. What was the meaning of this?

This is meant to show that god EXPECTS people to behave well. As a further note, there are many ways to wipe out all life on a planet, and since god could literally do anything, promising not to flood the world a second time is not really much of a promise at all, now is it?

Also, since the king hypothesis seems to describe the kings as sort of intelligent, how is it possible that these people were the only intelligent ones in the whole country?

Because as rulers, they had somewhat more privileges then the commoners, one of them being education. Also, I did not say it was one person coming up with the ENTIRE Torah, it was most likely a whole group of the top rulers, and happened over many generations.

Think about these questions, and get back to me on your further explanations.

I did :)


I hunt for the truth
This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by Open MInd, posted 09-25-2008 7:49 PM Open MInd has not yet responded

    
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 2373 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 223 of 224 (484138)
09-26-2008 5:35 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by Open MInd
09-25-2008 2:04 PM


Re: Good and Evil
quote:
I have come to the conclusion that most religions are false from the fact that most religions are mutually exclusive. Polytheism and Monotheism for example cannot both be correct because they are mutually exclusive. This is only one small example.

That doesn't necessarily follow. Just because they are contradictory does not mean they are wrong. First, you make the assumption that there is only one God. That may not be true. Furthermore, you make another assumption that God isn't playing a cruel trick, having all religions be true even though they are contradictory. Your argument is based on assumptions that have no basis in fact.

quote:
Most religions teach themselves as truth and all others as false. Therefore, most religions must be false.

See above. Multiple Gods refutes your logic as does a nonsensical God.

Feel free to try again, next time without fantasy assumptions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by Open MInd, posted 09-25-2008 2:04 PM Open MInd has not yet responded

  
NOT JULIUS
Member (Idle past 2732 days)
Posts: 219
From: Rome
Joined: 11-29-2006


Message 224 of 224 (484143)
09-26-2008 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Agobot
09-02-2008 5:10 PM


Hi A,
Agobot writes:

If God is really omnipotent, could he make another God?


I would answer this in 2 perspective.

1. From the Bible--yes. Here is reasoning from the bible:
Premise (P1): The word "god" or "God" is a generic title bestowed to those having power ( Ps 82:6)
P2: The title God or god applies to Jesus ( Joh 1:1)
P3: The bible says that Yahweh or Jehovah created Jesus ( Col 1:15,16; Rev 3:14)
P4: Jesus admitted that his Father, God, is greater than he is and that he is a mere worshipper of that God. ( Joh 14:28; 20:17)
Conclusion: From P1 to P4, we can reasonably conclude that the Almighty God created another god, Jesus--though lesser in power to him.

If you don't believe in the bible try this:
P1: God is almighty, he can make anything and anyone he likes
P2: But, God has also discretion--he can chose to make or not to make.
Conclusion: From P1 & P2 we can conclude that yes God is Almighty but he can choose to make or not to make another god or God.

Edited by Doubting Too, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Agobot, posted 09-02-2008 5:10 PM Agobot has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
1011121314
15
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019