Bert, I disbelieve your “religion [that] has the belief the gods were created from the universe, not the other way around”. So “Where did God dwell if no place existed to exist before his being?” is irrelevant to me unless you give me evidence that “gods were created from the universe, not the other way around”.
MaikU, if I misinterpreted Bert or if you believe this topic is a waste of time or if you believe that there are too many separate discussions in this thread, then just say so rather than vaguely say “This thread is dildos.”.
Do you disbelieve the possibility that gods can be created from the universe, or do you disbelieve my religion holds such things in it’s creation myths? The first, I could understand, the second, I don’t, because it’s pretty clear cut; but then again I should assume you’re not very well versed in religions outside Christianity. My question of God’s existence before the universe is a legitimate question; how can something, some intelligent all powerful all knowing being exist if there’s nothing else at all in existence? Either “God” is simply the universe and not a deity, or he is a deity and something was before him. What evidence would you like?
Something I had wrote on my Tumblr earlier today from Descartes Principles of Philosophy:
If it’s inferred the heavens are of the same matter and are material, than I can conclude the gods themselves would be of the same matter and material as well. If that follows then I put for the logic of a more polytheistic stance as well as two defining characteristics of a god/goddess: 1) they were created from the universe, and 2) they can die.
Descartes is a cartesian, substance dualist–not a doubt about it. What you say may be true about the gods, but it by no means is true of God, as he would have made imminently clear.
Anyway, people aren’t responding to your challenge, because, well, it isn’t a challenge at all. It’s simply a definitional thing that goes away with a little conceptual analysis. Besides, this thread was originally created in search of some sort of evidence or proof. I don’t denigrate myths (as you yourself call them), but I just don’t know if they fit in this category.
Lucky for me I’ve been reading Descartes the past few days, and he has some…“errors” or “loopholes” on the existence of God that I’ve been using to my “advantage” (or whatever). Something like the idea of a perfect being must have been placed in the minds of men by something as such I feel is a bit…flimsy. I rather take the Jungian route on that.
I jumped into the thread for fun, and the idea and structure of religion is something that interests me, so why not put forth the lesser known position? To quote Campbell, “Myths are what we call other people’s religion”, and myths are just the stories about gods, so seeing how it’s a “God/Religion” debate I think it fits well, it’s just not common for most people.
Yeah, the copyright argument. It was his attempt at an ontological argument. I’m not terribly convinced of it , let’s just say.
“Do you disbelieve the possibility that gods can be created from the universe,”
No.
“or do you disbelieve my religion holds such things in it’s creation myths?”
I don’t doubt the beliefs of your religion, but I doubt their validity. I believe you sincerely hold your particular religious beliefs, but I doubt those beliefs are true.
“My question of God’s existence before the universe is a legitimate question; how can something, some intelligent all powerful all knowing being exist if there’s nothing else at all in existence?”
I could be wrong, but I doubt the scientific consensus is nothing turned into something, but rather all the matter in the universe was in a super tight combination that exploded into the current universe.
“Either “God” is simply the universe and not a deity,”
If you want to call the universe that, go ahead.
“or he is a deity and something was before him. What evidence would you like?”
Well, you claim that gods exist, produced from the universe’s creation. I want to know the evidence you use to justify belief in those gods.
not sure much of a debate can be had here. if there were a way to prove God, or no god, we would all be in agreeance. likewise, there isn’t an older question in the history of man than, “from where did i come?” and/or “what am i doing here?”. and yet, in all this time, it hasn’t even come close to being answered. if it was meant to be answered (i.e., could be comprehended), it would have been answered by now (a believer’s perspective). if there is no answer, there’s no point in trying to figure it out (a nonbeliever’s perspective).
I think what you meant to say was that if there were a way to prove that capitalism was the most superior economic system in terms of wealth creation, then we’d all be in agreeance. I don’t think that’s a plausible route to take.
mr schnapps, you’re equating God to capitalism? perhaps because you believe they’re both man-made? that may be true, but there can be no way to know, because God can’t be tested. which was my point. capitalism can be. i’m not going to indulge into the next point too far, so as not to derail the thread, but i agree with capitalism because it necessarily means freedom, not because it garners the most wealth.
To be honest I really don’t have anything to go on except past beliefs hundreds (or thousands) of years before my time. I’m not going put it much further than “maybe they do, maybe they don’t, you’re choice”. Personally, for all I know and seem to understand it, various “spirits” or “beings” beyond my grasp who are motivating/working forces/energies in nature, the personification of this/these becomes gods/etc (again, there’s a large Jung/Campbell influence on me where the gods are just subconscious projections into archetypes for our understanding, yadda yadda yadda). For my religion it’s more along the lines of world view, values, attitudes, etc. and the question whether or not the belief in gods is a staple doesn’t really matter. If you walk, talk, and live like a Heathen, well, then I’d say you’re a Heathen.
I find the topic interesting, but I don’t find the questions/answers affecting much except outlook and understanding, not belief. I don’t really spend time trying to figure things out like “does such-and-such really exist?” or “what’s the meaning of life?”. Either you believe it does or it doesn’t, it’s psychological, either you can live life or just think about why there is life (or both), your choice.
…or to quote The Republic…
Srs, bro?
bert, it may be your intention to learn different perspectives, and i, too, enjoy it (not particularly on this topic, because it seems silly to me), but gero started this thread looking for a debate; looking for an answer to sway their opinion. like i said, i don’t think there’s much of a debate to be had there. learning other people’s perspectives can be valuable, but if it can’t be proved one way or the other, i see no point. key word, I. carry on.
My answer would be to look at religion from a different perspective, from a perspective most religious folk themselves don’t take.
mr schnapps, perhaps you could be more clear with what you meant. either i misunderstood you, or your analogy didn’t compute with my logic. either way, there’s a reason i asked a question to start off my reply. bear in mind it’s past 2am after a friday night. ps. text speak is annoying online. lolz.
bert, my answer has been that if [insert religion] could prove their religion there would be no other religions. i personally believe religious or theistic (separate things, that i hate when people use interchangeably) beliefs can only be “proved” to individuals themselves. although i can’t prove that :p. unlike the fact i can prove the earth is not flat. there are no flat earthers around anymore. ps. i can see where people should explore different perspectives, because maybe they haven’t found that individual “truth” yet. perhaps that’s what you’re trying to say. now i retract that this debate is useless. i will reword to say, a debate for universal truthness is useless. although that rests on my belief of individual “truth”. which isn’t provable. but to the quest of gero to find an answer to their question(s), i raise my glass.
Some people believe this because they believe their religion to be “the one” religion for everyone, and it’s “the way” and other such things. These people generally are narrow minded and are intolerant, and probably couldn’t comprehend the metaphysics of their own religion if someone explained it to them. Another aspect I’d like to bring up on this, if the Christian God does exist he’s outside my set of gods and not part of that structure, same with the Hindu gods. I don’t argue whether or not another religions gods exist or not, as far as I know they do (if you’re going to believe one god exists you might as well believe the other…)
Everyone has a “path” or “quest” whatever it may be, and they can interpret the events however they want. Myths/religion is an interpretation of events, it’s a structure and foundation with various elements. Your own life can be such. Consider religion the “public dream” and your own life the “private dream”. There’s things people do and act in accordance with on a large scale, and there’s individual cases.
“not sure much of a debate can be had here. if there were a way to prove God, or no god, we would all be in agreeance. likewise, there isn’t an older question in the history of man than, “from where did i come?” and/or “what am i doing here?”. and yet, in all this time, it hasn’t even come close to being answered. if it was meant to be answered (i.e., could be comprehended), it would have been answered by now (a believer’s perspective). if there is no answer, there’s no point in trying to figure it out (a nonbeliever’s perspective).”
I believe science has progressed well over time in explaining how the universe works. Biology, chemistry, physics, geology, astronomy, and more show that what was once a mystery is now understood. I just see a physical universe, no almighty god, no gods, no spirits, no ill-defined abstract minds, no supernatural.
“I’m not going put it much further than “maybe they do, maybe they don’t, you’re choice”.’”
Although you did not persuade me, thanks for your input.