"The God Virus"

[Mars Man]

Science tests the observable, if one cannot observe the unobservable does it not exist, or is science just limited in that aspect?

I would like to ask for more care, please. I think I have said this above, too, however, to know something, or to be able to know something is the bottom line. This is a fact. Some folk like to just throw out the word 'science' as though it were to be some nubulous of a something out that which stands in opposition to being able to know of a thing. No, that is a dead-end-street false conception. As I have pointed out in another, on-going thread, the bottom line is the state of having consciousness. Regardless of what items of knowledge are traced in memory across the cortex, the inability to access (access consciousness) renders those traces of memory (stored knowledge) totally useless for the organism. This, again, is a simple fact! There is nothing else that can be said about, really, unless one wants to really, really go into the details. That, however, is a neuroscience field.

If there were a thing which the human being could in no way observe through sensory conduct patterns, then that 'whatever-it-may-be' thing, will forever be just that--a whatever-it-may-be unknown.' When a person starts making positive statements about a matter, or thing, which actually is not a knowable thing--other than what that person will have imagined up--that is a figment of their imagination. It is something which exists only in the neural make-up of their brain (thus internal) and does not exist externally in nature at large, as an actuality of nature at large.

For the most unfortunate person who has a genetic mishap, or by early embryonic damage, does not have a functioning nociceptor system, pain will be unobservable. That person will have the mechanicoreceptors and thermoreceptors and so on, but those receptors which process to the conscious acknowlegement of what is called 'pain,' do nothing. This is exactly the same thing. To that person, pain does not exist internally. That person will never be able to know a thing about pain in that subjective sense.

For a person to come along and propose that they know of a being who is unknowable, and cannot be observed in any way, it is the case that person is already committing a logic error. To assert in the positive absolute that one knows what one cannot know, is a fallacy. Now, that such had been easy to do some 3,ooo years ago, is one thing, but to be able to do so today, well, ought to be a different thing. The reason this is so, is because of the accumulation of sound and valid empirical knowledge by humankind over the course of the past 3,ooo years. After all, the atmosphere is not a dome of solid nature, and the sun does not revolve around the earth, and there is no such thing as any physical location which houses non-physicaly copies of physical organisms of any sort, in any externally existing as an actuality of nature at large, in any manner whatsoever. Imagination, however, can be a really great thing !! I love Dali's art and surrealism is my style of painting !

 

[AquaLung]

The burden of soundly and validily subtantiating this statement, made in absolute positive modus, is on you, then. To make things very, very short, the evidence most clearly and with soundness and validity denies the statement which you have made here. In other words, AquaLung, you are making a false claim to know--however, I wish to give you the opportunity to support that. I will challenge any point which has no or little evidence for it, of for which 'provided' evidence itself is in error, and, I will suppy sound and valid enough evidence and data to demonstrate the opposite. I would do wish to let you know, out of fairness, however (and with no other intent here, honestly) that I have been researching this for some 15 years, and at a level which you may not have been, so please do be prepared for that. Let's have a good go of it !! (In the essence and mode of good scholarship and gentlemenly discussion and debate.)

If I'm making a false claim here, I think I've given enough information here to address where I'm wrong. There's already a difference between a Creator God/god/deity with a non-Creator deity just by their respective positions alone. I don't think there's any denial that respected men throughout history, including Thomas Paine noted for logic and reasoning, believed in the existence of a Creator. And intellects like Albert Einstein admitted to the possibility of the existence of a Creator. He believed to suggest otherwise (there is no Creator) is to claim to know something no one else knows. So yes, right off of the bat, we do need to make a distinction between the idea of a Creator, vs. a non-Creator deity(s).

Am I wrong? If so, where?

Yes, there are not that many specific creator gods or goddesses out there--be that in Shintoism or otherwise. However, it is a fact that there are supreme creator gods out there--even prior to the Jewish system's Yahweh. Therefore, even that much, even if there were only one other creator god in the entiry known history of human-created theist-involved religious belief systems, it is enough to refute the assertion that Yahweh has to be considered differently simply because it his being a supreme creator. This is true. Do you understand this logical line?

Yes, I do understand the logic here. However, I do think we do need deal with step# 1, which is to deal with the possibility of a Creator to begin with. We don't have to give Him any name at the moment.

Getting back to Thomas Paine, and deists; do you consider deism a religion?

How well have you studied the Jewish documents?

I've been a student of the Bible for some time now. What exactly do you mean by Jewish documents?

One of the tendencies of ancient nations/kingdoms was to establish a particular god who represented their people. The ancient Israelites, who had a tendency to want to mimic, so to speak, the surrounding nations, showed evidence of wanting to follow that same pattern when they in essence rejected God, the Creator for a symbolic manufactured god (the golden calf). We kind of see this rallying to create communal energy in team sporting events who have a symbolic mascot.How well have you studied early Isrealite history?

Please take note of my first paragraphs above. This assertion is false. I hope to have a good discussion, and, this is very much in line with the topic of this thread... but only going into deeper embedding so as to establish points made at the level of the OP. I look forward to this !

I am glad that you look forward to discussing this. I take that as a compliment. I am curious though as to what exactly it is that you see false here with my statement?

I'm not really, by the way, equating the Israelites with Oakland Raider fans. I do think there are some similarities though with gods that have represented a nation, used as sort of a symbol to unify; and athletic team mascots.

 

[AquaLung]

By the way, here is a link that may give you an idea of what I meant by ancient (for lack of a better term) folklore from peoples far removed from Middle Eastern and Israelite culture. This is sort of a rough presentation (in my opinion); and hopefully terms like White men (or even pagan) won't bring offense.

Don Richardson: Pagans

 

[Mars Man]

Thanks for that link, AquaLung. A couple of the cases of folklore I am slightly familiar with--that is, I have heard the reports before. The others are new, some doubtful simply because we now know a lot more about how brain works in both memory recall, and in illusion-creating circumstances. However, regardless, the fact that such folklore was, as best as can be ascertained, in place when Europeans first met some native peoples, says absolutely nothing to support a conclusion previously arrived at, through error, by European peoples. Thus much is quite substantially demonstrated. Enough so to go ahead and call it a fact.

 

[AquaLung]

Thanks for that link, AquaLung. A couple of the cases of folklore I am slightly familiar with--that is, I have heard the reports before. The others are new, some doubtful simply because we now know a lot more about how brain works in both memory recall, and in illusion-creating circumstances. However, regardless, the fact that such folklore was, as best as can be ascertained, in place when Europeans first met some native peoples, says absolutely nothing to support a conclusion previously arrived at, through error, by European peoples. Thus much is quite substantially demonstrated. Enough so to go ahead and call it a fact.

I think what you're expressing is skepticism. There's nothing wrong with skepticsm, however, skepticism is merely doubt. And not any type of proof. If there was proof that for instance, these redemptive analogies were illusions, there obviously wouldn't be any need for skepticism.

Now illusions in the mind is very real. But to maintain that all human experiences/interactions with God (Creator) must be illusions would be similar to saying that fruit trees and drinkable water are illusions because some have experienced desert halucinations.

 

[Mars Man]

I think that you may have read a little more into what I had written, than is what I had actually put into it. I'll have to take some of the blame for that, of course, because I'm sure I could have written it a little more clearly, or at least differently. Let me see here...

I think what you're expressing is skepticism. There's nothing wrong with skepticsm, however, skepticism is merely doubt. And not any type of proof.

Yes, this is correct. To doubt a matter is not to have an item of 'proof' of any sorts. However, items of knowledge, or knowledge in general, may be supporting the reasoning which results in the doubt--and the skepticism.

If there was proof that for instance, these redemptive analogies were illusions, there obviously wouldn't be any need for skepticism.

To make it clearer, I had only mentiond 'illusions' when referring to present knowledge of how the brain works, and mis-works. One of the examples provides evidence of the possible scenario where brain mis-works were influencing cognitive understanding and memory reconsolidation. (This item will come up later on the other thread I have recently started, and will get back with fairly soon enough)

Now illusions in the mind is very real. But to maintain that all human experiences/interactions with God (Creator) must be illusions would be similar to saying that fruit trees and drinkable water are illusions because some have experienced desert halucinations.

In the strictest sense of the term 'illusion' as it relates to cognitive function, and as opposed to 'delusions,' we would have to weigh each and every case. When it comes to historical reports which can no longer be investigated in this manner, we have little choice but to take educated guesses.

However, as soon as the notion 'God' is thrown out on the discussion floor, a whole new necessary domain comes into play. That domain is a testable one, and so we'd want to do that so as to verify claims and assertions to know. Additionally, it had been asserted that any redemption folk lore implied the expectation of the messianic redemption lore, which is a logical fallacy. All gods and goddesses, on the other hand, are the creations of human beings, be that by hallucination, illusion, or delusion, or not, so we don't really need to worry about the states of minds of those who left their legacies in the various theist-involved religious belief systems spread down through recorded human history. Before any human being living on the face of the earth had come up with God, there were thousands of other gods. Before these there had been the warrior-king heros of bands and tribes which fed the legends of the 'great ones.' These became--when mixed with run-away emotional overdive, mingled with the explanatory anthropomorphisms of the elements of nature (the other powerful, superhuman beings)--the various gods and goddesses.

 

[AquaLung]

I think that you may have read a little more into what I had written, than is what I had actually put into it. I'll have to take some of the blame for that, of course, because I'm sure I could have written it a little more clearly, or at least differently. Let me see here...

My apologies on that. I may very well have.

Yes, this is correct. To doubt a matter is not to have an item of 'proof' of any sorts. However, items of knowledge, or knowledge in general, may be supporting the reasoning which results in the doubt--and the skepticism.

I can think of a couple of examples of where this reasoning would apply. One of them would be the resurrection of Jesus. The reason for doubt is not due to historical contradictions; but due to a human perception that men just don't rise from the dead. Therefore, focusing on what is missing (front page news in the Jerusalem Chronicle/Roman Empire Herald, etc.), as opposed to the information given in support.

To make it clearer, I had only mentiond 'illusions' when referring to present knowledge of how the brain works, and mis-works. One of the examples provides evidence of the possible scenario where brain mis-works were influencing cognitive understanding and memory reconsolidation. (This item will come up later on the other thread I have recently started, and will get back with fairly soon enough)

In the strictest sense of the term 'illusion' as it relates to cognitive function, and as opposed to 'delusions,' we would have to weigh each and every case. When it comes to historical reports which can no longer be investigated in this manner, we have little choice but to take educated guesses.

Fair enough it would seem.

However, as soon as the notion 'God' is thrown out on the discussion floor, a whole new necessary domain comes into play. That domain is a testable one, and so we'd want to do that so as to verify claims and assertions to know. Additionally, it had been asserted that any redemption folk lore implied the expectation of the messianic redemption lore, which is a logical fallacy. All gods and goddesses, on the other hand, are the creations of human beings, be that by hallucination, illusion, or delusion, or not, so we don't really need to worry about the states of minds of those who left their legacies in the various theist-involved religious belief systems spread down through recorded human history. Before any human being living on the face of the earth had come up with God, there were thousands of other gods. Before these there had been the warrior-king heros of bands and tribes which fed the legends of the 'great ones.' These became--when mixed with run-away emotional overdive, mingled with the explanatory anthropomorphisms of the elements of nature (the other powerful, superhuman beings)--the various gods and goddesses.

I'm curious as to what leads you to this conclusion? What would lead you to believe that gods (or sub-gods) came before the idea of an ultimate Creator? I don't think we see this, for instance, with Native American religions where there are various deities and the Great Spirit. For one, it's fairly common to believe that sub-gods and deities are creations of an ultimate creator (whether by human-like birthing, or indescribable creation).

The early cave-dwellers drew pictures of animals and hunting without pictures of apparent deities; so it's believed that they had no perception of God. But that's merely an opinion. For one, ultimate Creators are generally not put into picture format nearly as much as lesser deities. In addition, according to the Biblical description of the evidence of God through creation, not everyone will focus on this evidence. There always was, is, and will be those focused more, or entirely on the material.

And this is why I was curious as to your thoughts on deism. Generally deism is not viewed as a religion. There are many that believe that it was the deists in American history who gave us our religious freedom (although I believe this idea is seriously flawed). However, those like Thomas Paine who opposed organized religion believed in an ultimate creator. Why would this be something new that didn't exist in the earliest phases of human history?

 

[Mars Man]

I'm curious as to what leads you to this conclusion? What would lead you to believe that gods (or sub-gods) came before the idea of an ultimate Creator?

I'm going to focus on this, then--it's quite in line with the general subject range of the thread.

As for the Hebrew portion of the Bible, there is occasionally a real need to know the Hebrew. For the NT, there is occasionally a need to know the Greek--I can help there. I'll be back. And just to answer the final question in post number 46 above, I will firstly correct the wording, then answer here.

In stricter terms, thus more accurately and by better standard usage, God is a proper noun. It is the name plugged-in to substitute for Yahweh in especially the KJV. The American Standard protected the better translation methodology by transliterating proper nouns, rather than falling prey to old and silly Jewish religious leaders' superstition. Of course, much of the Gentile Christian movement, had never been working with the Hebrew texts, but rather with the LXX. Some copies had evidently (as found among the Qumran scrolls) maintain the Tetragrammaton, but most substituted other forms, or the word kyrios to mimic the Hebrew vowel adjustments. (post #47)

Before any human being living on the face of the earth had come up with God, there were thousands of other gods. Before these there had been the warrior-king heros of bands and tribes which fed the legends of the 'great ones.' These became--when mixed with run-away emotional overdive, mingled with the explanatory anthropomorphisms of the elements of nature (the other powerful, superhuman beings)--the various gods and goddesses. (post #56)

There's already a difference between a Creator God/god/deity with a non-Creator deity just by their respective positions alone. I don't think there's any denial that respected men throughout history, including Thomas Paine noted for logic and reasoning, believed in the existence of a Creator. And intellects like Albert Einstein admitted to the possibility of the existence of a Creator. He believed to suggest otherwise (there is no Creator) is to claim to know something no one else knows. So yes, right off of the bat, we do need to make a distinction between the idea of a Creator, vs. a non-Creator deity(s).

Am I wrong? If so, where?

Yes, I do understand the logic here. However, I do think we do need deal with step# 1, which is to deal with the possibility of a Creator to begin with. We don't have to give Him any name at the moment. (post #52)

While the complexity of the line of inquiry kind of makes it hard to enter...if not simply in chronological order... but I will try to fit something together here, and make an effort to keep it concise. Of course, the above quotes from older posts will hopefully help out too.

We are using English, so we have that focus firstly. Due to what had happened, the common noun 'god' (I'll leave goddesses aside for the moment, basically) came to be capitalized by standard to distinguish the Christian god model from the non-Christian god models. This was putting in the class of being a personal name (proper noun). Therefore in English, God is the name of the main god described in the English copy of the first biblical works. This, however is the second major turn of this line of errors, but I'll focus on this aspect with this point.

What has developed is that the details and facts have been lost to most folks, most sadly. Nowadays people just pitch out "God" in any ole fashion they so desire; but that is not only erroneous, it is less accurate and is sub-standard English usage. It is true that within this movement, and with a big push from the 'political correctness' (PC) loving folks, 'God' is used to refer to the god model presented by the Quran, but I argue that that too, is misleading and confusing. We need to use the Arabic there. What is left, then, is that when we use 'God,' we are either talking about Christendom's biblical Christian god model, or, we're talking about the god model of the Tanakh, and the earlier early 'Christian' group. That's it. The English word form 'God' refers to no other models at all. (1)

However, here we find one more fact which needs proper handling. The name of the god which the Jewish theist-involved religious belief system produced and worshiped, was יהוה . As is the best methodology in translating, unless pun is specifically used to share meaning, all names are to be transliterated. In the case of the English translation of the Tanakh, of course god's name, יהוה (Yahweh, or YHWH) is to be transliterated. It wasn't, however, by the King James committee--partially due to pressure from the Jewish quarters to not lead to oral pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton (that is, יהוה ). The creator god of the Tanakh is Yahweh.

It is known that in the course of human history, there were creator gods in worship and description before Yahweh had come to be the god of the Israelite nation state. There are a good number of various creator gods (as well as goddesses), and, exactly like יהוה they are all gods. This is a fact by mere definition and usage over the ages. It is also known--and recently further evidenced--that animism had been quite widespread across many primitive sub-cultures in ages long gone, and before Yahweh came into being. Shamanism evidently had built up from that base, but the real starter for the concept of gods came with the warrior-kings of ere. This is far more specifically where we being to find the male being who leads and supports, rewards and punishes, who can be reasoned with (due to human-like cognitive ability [center of intelligence = brain]), and who can be beseeched.

Therefore, in conclusion on this point of understanding and better methodology, if one wishes to talk about יהוה , then use the name Yahweh (or, at least YHWH). If one wishes to use the proper noun form 'God,' then that one is talking only about the biblical god of the later Christian system. When talking of the god that the Quran describes, one would be better off--to save confusion--using the Arabic transliterated, that is, 'Allah.' The native peoples of the Americas, had their several animistic systems in place even before the Jewish system itself had come into being... as best we can tell.. and even then, in the years 400-100 BCE, they knew nothing of YHWH whatsoever. We can conclude that they did not worship God, either. Any creator that was worshiped by an groups of people, if not YHWH, or if not the Christian's God, is not either one of these said creators, then. Additionally, we do not need to focus on, and take up, then apply only, the fallacy which Plato instigated.

(And, in a final note, yes, Deism is a religious sect, denomination, if you will, of Christianity. For that reason, it was built up on, or from, the Christian biblical god.)




1. Diamond, Jared (1997) Guns, Germs, and Steel--The Fates of Human Societies. W.W. Norton & Company.

New Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology. New York: Cresent Books (1987 ed.).

The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge. Baker Book House.

Kitts, Margo (2011) Ritual Scenes in the Iliad: Rote, Hallowed, or Encrypted as Ancient Art?. Oral Tradition 26(1), pp 221-246.

The Golden Bough: a study of magic and religion. by Sir James G. Frazer. Gutenberg Project. (2003)

What the Great Religions Believe. by Joseph Gaer. The New American Library. (1963)

Religions of the Ancient Near East. by Daniel C. Snell. Cambridge. (2011)

An Introduction to Ancient Mesopotamian Religion. by Tammi, J. Schneider. Eerdmans. (2011)

Writings from the Ancient World: Iron Age Hieroglyphic Luwian Inscriptions. by Annick Payne. Society of Biblical Literature. Series Number 29. (2012).

Young's Analytical Concordance to the Bible -- ( HINTS AND HELPS TO BIBLE INTERPRETATION) by Robert Young. Funk & Wagnalls.

Eve's Seed--Biology, the Sexes, and the Course of History. by Roberts McElvaine. McGraw-Hill (2001).

Gaudard, Francois, and Johnson, Janet H. (2008-11) Annual Report on the Chicago Demotic Dictionary (CDD) projec.

Gibbons, Ann (2012) The Ultimate Sacrifice. Science 336(6083) 18 May.

Chan, Michael (2009) Rhetorical Reversal and Usurpation: Isaiah 10:5-34 and the Use of Neo-Assyrian Royal Idiom in the Construction of an Anti-Assyrian Theology. Journal of Biblical Literature 128(4), pp 717-733.

Chew, Kathryn (1998) Focalization in Xenophon of Ephesos' Ephesiaka. IN: Hock, Chance, and Perkins (eds), Ancient Fiction And Early Christian Narrative; Society of Biblical Literature Symposium Series, No. 6; pp 47-59.

Steiner, Richard C. (2009) On the Rise and Fall of Canaanite Religion at Baalbek: A Tale of Five Toponums. Jour Bib Lit 128(3), pp 507-525.

Aristotle's On the Soul and On Memory and Recollection. by Joe Sachs (translator and commentator). Green Lion Press. (2004).

The Evolution of God. by Robert Wright. Little, Brown, and Company (2009).

Lenzi, Alan (2010) Invoking the God: Interpreting Invocations in Mesopotamian Prayers and Biblical Laments of the Individual. Jour bib Lit. 129(2), pp 303-315.

Trotter, James M. (2012) Death of the אלהים in Psalm 82. Jour Bib Lit 131(2), pp 221-239.

(etc., etc., etc. )

 

[AquaLung]

I'm going to focus on this, then--it's quite in line with the general subject range of the thread.

​

While the complexity of the line of inquiry kind of makes it hard to enter...if not simply in chronological order... but I will try to fit something together here, and make an effort to keep it concise. Of course, the above quotes from older posts will hopefully help out too.

We are using English, so we have that focus firstly. Due to what had happened, the common noun 'god' (I'll leave goddesses aside for the moment, basically) came to be capitalized by standard to distinguish the Christian god model from the non-Christian god models. This was putting in the class of being a personal name (proper noun). Therefore in English, God is the name of the main god described in the English copy of the first biblical works. This, however is the second major turn of this line of errors, but I'll focus on this aspect with this point.

What has developed is that the details and facts have been lost to most folks, most sadly. Nowadays people just pitch out "God" in any ole fashion they so desire; but that is not only erroneous, it is less accurate and is sub-standard English usage. It is true that within this movement, and with a big push from the 'political correctness' (PC) loving folks, 'God' is used to refer to the god model presented by the Quran, but I argue that that too, is misleading and confusing. We need to use the Arabic there. What is left, then, is that when we use 'God,' we are either talking about Christendom's biblical Christian god model, or, we're talking about the god model of the Tanakh, and the earlier early 'Christian' group. That's it. The English word form 'God' refers to no other models at all. (1)

However, here we find one more fact which needs proper handling. The name of the god which the Jewish theist-involved religious belief system produced and worshiped, was יהוה . As is the best methodology in translating, unless pun is specifically used to share meaning, all names are to be transliterated. In the case of the English translation of the Tanakh, of course god's name, יהוה (Yahweh, or YHWH) is to be transliterated. It wasn't, however, by the King James committee--partially due to pressure from the Jewish quarters to not lead to oral pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton (that is, יהוה ). The creator god of the Tanakh is Yahweh.

It is known that in the course of human history, there were creator gods in worship and description before Yahweh had come to be the god of the Israelite nation state. There are a good number of various creator gods (as well as goddesses), and, exactly like יהוה they are all gods. This is a fact by mere definition and usage over the ages. It is also known--and recently further evidenced--that animism had been quite widespread across many primitive sub-cultures in ages long gone, and before Yahweh came into being. Shamanism evidently had built up from that base, but the real starter for the concept of gods came with the warrior-kings of ere. This is far more specifically where we being to find the male being who leads and supports, rewards and punishes, who can be reasoned with (due to human-like cognitive ability [center of intelligence = brain]), and who can be beseeched.

Therefore, in conclusion on this point of understanding and better methodology, if one wishes to talk about יהוה , then use the name Yahweh (or, at least YHWH). If one wishes to use the proper noun form 'God,' then that one is talking only about the biblical god of the later Christian system. When talking of the god that the Quran describes, one would be better off--to save confusion--using the Arabic transliterated, that is, 'Allah.' The native peoples of the Americas, had their several animistic systems in place even before the Jewish system itself had come into being... as best we can tell.. and even then, in the years 400-100 BCE, they knew nothing of YHWH whatsoever. We can conclude that they did not worship God, either. Any creator that was worshiped by an groups of people, if not YHWH, or if not the Christian's God, is not either one of these said creators, then. Additionally, we do not need to focus on, and take up, then apply only, the fallacy which Plato instigated.

Everything you've stated makes perfect sense if we only perceive God as a fictional/variety of fictional character/characters. If we consider one ultimate Creator as being reality, then there's no need to confine God to language definition. In Acts 17:23-24, God is referred to as both a deity in a general sense, and the One True God theos. In other words, Paul took the Athenian's view of God, or one of many deities that they had no name for, and replaced it with a description of the One True God. When someone(s) describes God as "Unknown", in reference to the One True God, who knows what definition to place! If a person in a non-Hebrew/Judeo-Christian land prays to God in such a way that they seek a relationship with God, then history (and many testimonies) suggest that God answers them. Even in the Bible itself (Book Of Acts), a Roman Centurion prayed to God theos regularly, without having been disciplined in the teachings of Christ. As far as we know, the Roman Centurion prayed to God just as someone in China may have at the same time, with the same general understanding that a Supreme being exists. So the fact that God is often thrown out loosely in many cases may merely be as a result of a conscious realization that an ultimate Creator does exist. Or, they seek to find out if He does exist. These 2 scenarios can happen anywhere. The contemplation of a Creator does not have to be a product of a cultural theistic religion.

If we define God as if He didn't exist, then there's no problem in confining Him to linguistic definitions (other than Him actually existing). If we define Him as one who does exist, then to try and separate God from other linguistic (or regional, cultural, national) references could be like trying to suggest that George Washington and Conotocaurious (the Iroquois name for George Washington) are 2 separate people.

(And, in a final note, yes, Deism is a religious sect, denomination, if you will, of Christianity. For that reason, it was built up on, or from, the Christian biblical god.)

Deism is not a denomination or a religious sect of Christianity. It's traditional conception in Europe was in opposition to Christianity. It's only affiliation is that of evolving out of a cultural Christian environment. There is a division (or sect) of deism that refer to themselves as Christian deists, but only based on adhering to the moral teachings of Jesus, but believing that Jesus was only a mere human. There are also those who identify themselves as Christian atheists using the same principle.

There are different types of deism, but the general principle is that the only information God has given us is what we experience with our senses.

Another very vital aspect to this discussion is the fact that there are only so many people who hold a dogmatic view that God absolutely does not exist. These are only the very strictest of atheists. And there's the sense that even they struggle to make such a claim. If one cannot claim that God, without question, does not exist, then this opens up avenues that won't allow us to confine God into linguistic definitions.

 

[Mars Man]

Everything you've stated makes perfect sense if we only perceive God as a fictional/variety of fictional character/characters.

Well, one thing we need to do is make adjustments for better clarification--I'm talking about the word form usage--because I cannot tell, from this sentence's usage of the form 'God,' compared with what had come afterwards, if you do, actually, intend to be referring to the Christian god. I will take it for now, however, that you are. Then, that God became due the figment of imagination is quite certain a matter, and thus the content of my presentation. In order to demonstrate otherwise, we'll have to see nature at large exactly matching the descriptions and prescriptions given of that deity by the information source. We do not.

If we consider one ultimate Creator as being reality, then there's no need to confine God to language definition.

Although the usage and syntax around the 'as being reality' clause is slightly ambiguous, this falls into fatal error because we cannot have a term for which there is no knowledge of what it is referring to. We cannot have God without the notion of gods. The notions of gods grew in the human sphere of activity. (I have now pointed out this fact a number of times, and it is a fact.) To assert that we can imagine a thing (as I had mentioned in passing before, Plato was mistaken, and it is erroneous to lean on him), and that by having done so, that thing is automatically an external actuality of nature at large, is mistaken. It is ludicrous at our point in the stream of time to posit that there is something which we cannot define linguistically, nor, thereby describe or know of, which we can call "God." The reason for that is due to fixed nature of the two forms of the noun god, and the history in their development.

In Acts 17:23-24, God is referred to as both a deity in a general sense, and the One True God theos. In other words, Paul took the Athenian's view of God, or one of many deities that they had no name for, and replaced it with a description of the One True God. ...

I will leave only this much here, for space and reader-friendly reasons, but am replying to the whole of it up to the next quoted portion. If we look to the acts of the apostles, at 17:16-34 (the entire immediate contextual setting for that block), we will find, at vvs 23, 24, the following:

23ﾆ津と津?津θ津照津犯津哉津竿津θ津業津?#962; ﾆ津?陳ｿﾆ津 ﾆ津鞍陳ｿﾆ津 ﾆ陳ｿﾆ津業陳ｿﾆ津?津θ津免津照津免津 ﾆ津柁陳ｿ ﾆ津脆津θ津?ﾆ陳ｿﾆ津脆津竿陳ｿﾆ津柁陳ｿ ﾆ津槌津竿津免津 ﾆ津θ津槌津照津哉津 ﾆ津鞍陳ｿﾆ津 ﾆ津?ﾆ津免津竿津哉津 ﾆ津θ津 ﾆ津 ﾆ津θ津屡津θ津?津θ津?津照陳ｿﾆ津屡津柁津 ﾆ陳ｿﾆ津?津業津免津脆津柁津 ﾆ津?津θ津 ﾆ津 ﾆ津哉津槌津 ﾆ陳ｿﾆ津?津業津哉津哉津槌津業津柁津?#962; ﾆ津θ津槌津脆津θ津?ﾆ津θ津?津柁津 ﾆ津柁津哉津槌津柁津 ﾆ津θ津?津 ﾆ津鞍陳ｿﾆ津柁陳ｿﾆ津?津?津θ津家津家津 ﾆ津槌津竿津?津 24ﾆ津 ﾆ津?津θ津?#962; ﾆ津 ﾆ津屡津哉津?津?津脆陳ｿς ﾆ津柁津哉津 ﾆ津鞍津哉津脆津竿津哉津 ﾆ津鞍陳ｿﾆ津 ﾆ津屡陳ｿﾆ津業津柁陳ｿ ﾆ津柁陳ｿ ﾆ津θ津 ﾆ陳ｿﾆ津槌津柁津 ﾆ津哉津槌津柁津?#962; ﾆ津哉津槌津照陳ｿﾆ津業津哉津 ﾆ津鞍陳ｿﾆ津 ﾆ津?津?#962; ﾆ津槌津屡陳ｿﾆ津照津犯津免津 ﾆ津鞍津槌津照津?津?#962; ﾆ津哉津槌津 ﾆ津θ津 ﾆ津犯津θ津?津照津哉津屡津哉津?津?津柁津哉津?#962; ﾆ津業陳ｿﾆ津哉津?#962; ﾆ津鞍陳ｿﾆ津柁津哉津?津鞍津θ津 ​

Summarizing the detail here, the first instance of the Greek term to which a form of the English word 'god is assigned, is ﾆ津?津θ津房/b] (theo), and the second instance is ﾆ津 ﾆ津?津θ津?#962; (ho theos). The first occurrence is clearly in the countable noun sense due to immediately preceding context.(1) The second instance, ﾆ津 ﾆ津?津θ津?#962;, is articulated with the definite form. It is clear that the author wishes to distinguish Yahweh from the other Greek gods, and let him stand in for that unknown god which the alter had been erected for. It is most clear that the first instance is not referring to Yahweh, whereas the second is. In present Christian wording, switch 'Yahweh' with 'God.' The Greeks did not worship God, they worshiped Zeus, Apollo, Venus, bacchus, Artemis, and many other gods and goddesses.

When someone(s) describes God as "Unknown", in reference to the One True God, who knows what definition to place! If a person in a non-Hebrew/Judeo-Christian land prays to God in such a way that they seek a relationship with God, then history (and many testimonies) suggest that God answers them.

This does not hold up at all. It is completely illogical to state that person can mention or talk about Yahweh, or God, for that matter, and at the same time claim that Yahweh, or God, is unknown to themselves. Taking just the Hebrew portion for ease, here, it is a false claim to assert that a person who had prayed to their particular god of choice, say, Huitzilopochtli, had been praying to Yahweh, and that Yahweh would render their requests come true, or something. That, is utter nonsense. Primarily, because it has presupposed that a given god among the hundreds that humankind had been worshipping, is in fact an external actuality of nature whereas the other gods are not. That has already failed the test of time and sample space.

Even in the Bible itself (Book Of Acts), a Roman Centurion prayed to God theos regularly, without having been disciplined in the teachings of Christ. As far as we know, the Roman Centurion prayed to God just as someone in China may have at the same time, with the same general understanding that a Supreme being exists.

The fault here, Aqualung, is not paying attention to the contextual setting. In summary here, Cornelius, along with his household, was a worshiper of Yahweh. He was not, however, a member of the synagogue, and was of non-Jewish descent. While the story is most likely didactic in nature--thus not an actual occurrence--it is clear that the author, and the direct and immediate audience (Theophilus) held that YHWH was the god in question; not just any ole god of any theist-involved religious belief system whatever.

So the fact that God is often thrown out loosely in many cases may merely be as a result of a conscious realization that an ultimate Creator does exist. Or, they seek to find out if He does exist. These 2 scenarios can happen anywhere. The contemplation of a Creator does not have to be a product of a cultural theistic religion.

No, this is false. Let me try this again. First of all, in English, the very noun form 'God' is not talking about just any ole god out there. Your constant failure to recognize and put into application, this fact, is part of the error. Then, we can clearly see for a fact, that neither Yahweh, nor the later early Christian god model allow cross worship to other gods--this is extremely clear. Maybe I will have to hammer at this until the cows come home, but just dreaming up an idea in no way whatsoever makes it a reality externally. One cannot realize a god without firstly having the notion of god. It just doesn't work that way. The last sentence is flat out false. One cannot posit a creator god without firstly positing the notion of god. There have been, in fact, many creator gods but the description and details related to, and about, them, create the circumstance that they largely cross each other out. If creator god A is an external actuality of nature, then according to the information source for creator god B, creator god A is crossed out--meaning, A is shown to be a false god. We have enough occurrence of this in the Tanakh, to fully substantiate it.

If we define God as if He didn't exist, then there's no problem in confining Him to linguistic definitions (other than Him actually existing). If we define Him as one who does exist, then to try and separate God from other linguistic (or regional, cultural, national) references could be like trying to suggest that George Washington and Conotocaurious (the Iroquois name for George Washington) are 2 separate people.

You are here again missing it. The common noun 'god' is the class of things, the proper noun 'God' is the office within the class. The actual individual human male, George Washington, was the class--the class of human males. His name, a proper noun, is the office within the class--this particular human male who goes by the personal name George Washington. That the Iroquois called him by another epithet, or title, or (maybe) name, is of no consequence to the fact of the distinction between class and office. Additionally, we do not really 'define' proper nouns, only common nouns. Therefore it is the claim to know that we must consider. There is where the testing is done.

Deism is not a denomination or a religious sect of Christianity. It's traditional conception in Europe was in opposition to Christianity. It's only affiliation is that of evolving out of a cultural Christian environment. There is a division (or sect) of deism that refer to themselves as Christian deists, but only based on adhering to the moral teachings of Jesus, but believing that Jesus was only a mere human. There are also those who identify themselves as Christian atheists using the same principle.
There are different types of deism, but the general principle is that the only information God has given us is what we experience with our senses.

Thanks for that additional information. I recall a different definition of Deism, but regardless, what you present makes it a religion, it seems.

Another very vital aspect to this discussion is the fact that there are only so many people who hold a dogmatic view that God absolutely does not exist. These are only the very strictest of atheists. And there's the sense that even they struggle to make such a claim. If one cannot claim that God, without question, does not exist, then this opens up avenues that won't allow us to confine God into linguistic definitions.

This doesn't make any sense at all. I do not consider myself an atheist, per se--though non-theist is about the same, in a way--but that it had been those who first claimed to know that there was an actual, existing external male being out there, of supernatural, superhuman circumstance, and who intervened in human affairs in history and who has control over people's lives, who have failed to prove that hypothesis, is a fact. It is a fact, for example, that the firm Shintoist will deny that God exists in this way, but that other gods do exist in this way.



1. (vs 22b : ﾆ陳ｿﾆ津業津と津照津?#962; ﾆ陳ｿﾆ津?津?津業陳ｿﾆ津?津哉津 ﾆ津鞍陳ｿﾆ津柁陳ｿ ﾆ津屡陳ｿﾆ津業津柁陳ｿ ﾆ津?#962; ﾆ津と津θ津?津脆津?津と陳ｿﾆ津?津竿津哉津業津θ津脆津柁津θ津照津哉津?#962; ﾆ津槌津竿陳ｿς ﾆ津?津θ津免津照津房/color] where deisidaimonesterous = demon-dreading referring to the number of demi-gods and goddesses worshiped by the Athenians. ) The KJV follows the Latin, and renders it 'superstitious,' whereas the American Standard (AS 1901) put it as 'very religious,' and the New American Standard (NAS of 1960) followed suit, as did the Today's English Version Good News Bible (TEV American Bible Society, 1971). Benjamin Wilson's Emphatic Diaglott of the late 19th century, has 'extremely devoted to the worship of Demons,' and NRSV (1989) renders it the same as the NAS. This sets the contextual stage for the following term ﾆ津?津θ津房/b] making it signify a given god from among any number of gods.

 

[AquaLung]

Well, one thing we need to do is make adjustments for better clarification--I'm talking about the word form usage--because I cannot tell, from this sentence's usage of the form 'God,' compared with what had come afterwards, if you do, actually, intend to be referring to the Christian god. I will take it for now, however, that you are. Then, that God became due the figment of imagination is quite certain a matter, and thus the content of my presentation. In order to demonstrate otherwise, we'll have to see nature at large exactly matching the descriptions and prescriptions given of that deity by the information source. We do not.

When you label God according to a religion (as you seem to be doing, although I might be wrong), you're inevitably going to run into all kinds of problems. For instance, Allah is represented in Islam as the same God of the Jews. The Mormons believe they worship the same God of the Jews (that Christians do), but don't consider themselves Christians*. The asterix is placed there because at the present time, there are probably Mormons that do (I have Mormons in my family who I think see it that way), and the Mormon Church seem to identify today more with Christianity. But in their beginnings, they did not (for lack of a better term) advertize themselves as Christians. Even though many people in general think they are a sect of Christianity, they are a different religion if we need to label belief systems according to religion. Islam is of course also a different religion. But the claim is the same. So yes, I'm talking about the Christian God, the God represented in Abrahamic religion, and who I believe is the Creator of the Universe who anyone globally can seek (or cry out to) in sincerity, and removal of local folk-loric deities. I'll get more into that later as there is much more to say (realizing that the concept of a universal God using a small nation as a starting point is difficult to grasp).

Although the usage and syntax around the 'as being reality' clause is slightly ambiguous, this falls into fatal error because we cannot have a term for which there is no knowledge of what it is referring to. We cannot have God without the notion of gods. The notions of gods grew in the human sphere of activity. (I have now pointed out this fact a number of times, and it is a fact.) To assert that we can imagine a thing (as I had mentioned in passing before, Plato was mistaken, and it is erroneous to lean on him), and that by having done so, that thing is automatically an external actuality of nature at large, is mistaken. It is ludicrous at our point in the stream of time to posit that there is something which we cannot define linguistically, nor, thereby describe or know of, which we can call "God." The reason for that is due to fixed nature of the two forms of the noun god, and the history in their development.

I don't think I was implying that we can't define God linguistically. And I would like clarification of what exactly you mean by "We cannot have God without the notion of gods"? From what it looks like, and looked like in prior posts, is that we can't have the idea, or concept of an ultimate creator without first a notion of gods (plural), or lesser deities. That the concept of gods (plural) must come first. I'm thinking that you mean something different. But it's how it's coming across. At least to me.

I will leave only this much here, for space and reader-friendly reasons, but am replying to the whole of it up to the next quoted portion. If we look to the acts of the apostles, at 17:16-34 (the entire immediate contextual setting for that block), we will find, at vvs 23, 24, the following:

23διερχομενος γαρ και αναθεωρων τα σεβασματα υμων ευρον και βωμον εν ω επεγεγραπτο αγνωστω θεω ο ουν αγνοουντες ευσεβειτε τουτο εγω καταγγελλω υμιν 24ο θεος ο ποιησας τον κοσμον και παντα τα εν αυτω ουτος ουρανου και γης υπαρχων κυριος ουκ εν χειροποιητοις ναοις κατοικει ​

Summarizing the detail here, the first instance of the Greek term to which a form of the English word 'god is assigned, is θεω (theo), and the second instance is ο θεος (ho theos). The first occurrence is clearly in the countable noun sense due to immediately preceding context.(1) The second instance, ο θεος, is articulated with the definite form. It is clear that the author wishes to distinguish Yahweh from the other Greek gods, and let him stand in for that unknown god which the alter had been erected for. It is most clear that the first instance is not referring to Yahweh, whereas the second is. In present Christian wording, switch 'Yahweh' with 'God.' The Greeks did not worship God, they worshiped Zeus, Apollo, Venus, bacchus, Artemis, and many other gods and goddesses.

I agree. However, there's a difference between what the author meant, and what the Athenians collectively and individually meant. I actually wasn't really referring to the author. The author was simply conveying what he knew and witnessed. Of course the fact that you think the incident may not have happened at all can be significant. But since you're not even really sure, don't you think it's potential reality (from your standpoint) could be highly relevant?

This does not hold up at all. It is completely illogical to state that person can mention or talk about Yahweh, or God, for that matter, and at the same time claim that Yahweh, or God, is unknown to themselves. Taking just the Hebrew portion for ease, here, it is a false claim to assert that a person who had prayed to their particular god of choice, say, Huitzilopochtli, had been praying to Yahweh, and that Yahweh would render their requests come true, or something. That, is utter nonsense. Primarily, because it has presupposed that a given god among the hundreds that humankind had been worshipping, is in fact an external actuality of nature whereas the other gods are not. That has already failed the test of time and sample space.

I would of course like to know how it's failed the test of time (examples?). And it would seem to me you would have to assume that remote peoples who prayed to "God", and receieved revelation that messengers would come bringing news of how one enters into a personal relationship with God never happened (as per the link I gave you). Can you prove that?

The fault here, Aqualung, is not paying attention to the contextual setting. In summary here, Cornelius, along with his household, was a worshiper of Yahweh. He was not, however, a member of the synagogue, and was of non-Jewish descent. While the story is most likely didactic in nature--thus not an actual occurrence--it is clear that the author, and the direct and immediate audience (Theophilus) held that YHWH was the god in question; not just any ole god of any theist-involved religious belief system whatever.

Of course again, you're suggesting that this may not have happened. Since I'm assuming that at the same time you are open to the possibility that this person did exist, and the event described is accurate, how would you ultimately know what that man's conviction was? He was obviously exposed to various local gods that he didn't have a fear of. Why would he decide to fear the God of the Jews? I doubt that he was a Hebrewphile, that sort of embraced all things Hebrew. Maybe these local deities seemed superficial. There's no doubt that he was exposed to Yahweh via relatively close proximity. But the thing we have to realize is that the Bible does not give any record of peoples who were far removed from Israel and it's prophets. You can't ultimately claim that peoples in other regions of the world did/do not fear, pray, and worship the very same Yahweh. In fact, it can easily be stated that the reason Christ commanded His disciples to go out into all the world is because of people like Cornelius in far off lands.

In addition; the Ninevites repentend after receiving the news of judgment from God (the Creator). There's no reason to assume they ever worshiped Yahweh, or even had enough of a knowledge of Him to warrant this type of conviction. The conviction would probably be more divine in nature as opposed to being back-slidden, or closet-Yahweh worshipers.

No, this is false. Let me try this again. First of all, in English, the very noun form 'God' is not talking about just any ole god out there. Your constant failure to recognize and put into application, this fact, is part of the error.

You are misunderstanding me. I'm not implying this at all.

Then, we can clearly see for a fact, that neither Yahweh, nor the later early Christian god model allow cross worship to other gods--this is extremely clear. Maybe I will have to hammer at this until the cows come home, but just dreaming up an idea in no way whatsoever makes it a reality externally. One cannot realize a god without firstly having the notion of god. It just doesn't work that way. The last sentence is flat out false. One cannot posit a creator god without firstly positing the notion of god. There have been, in fact, many creator gods but the description and details related to, and about, them, create the circumstance that they largely cross each other out. If creator god A is an external actuality of nature, then according to the information source for creator god B, creator god A is crossed out--meaning, A is shown to be a false god. We have enough occurrence of this in the Tanakh, to fully substantiate it.

I'm guessing that you have read into my statements that any/all references to an ultimate creator are all one and the same. If so, you've misread my statements.

Thanks for that additional information. I recall a different definition of Deism, but regardless, what you present makes it a religion, it seems.

If we took the broad or all definitions of religion, just about anything can be considered a religion. And this includes Atheism (particularly since there was a court decision mandating certain religious rights for atheists). There is however no real organized functioning church for deists, unless it's something remote like the Church of Jimi Hendrix, Church of Satan, etc.

This doesn't make any sense at all. I do not consider myself an atheist, per se--though non-theist is about the same, in a way--but that it had been those who first claimed to know that there was an actual, existing external male being out there, of supernatural, superhuman circumstance, and who intervened in human affairs in history and who has control over people's lives, who have failed to prove that hypothesis, is a fact. It is a fact, for example, that the firm Shintoist will deny that God exists in this way, but that other gods do exist in this way.

To my understanding, the Shintoists believe that the various gods are human-like (possess human traits including faults).

The general idea that the deists convey (like that of Thomas Paine), is that God does not interact with man. He created the Universe without directly involving Himself in the affairs of men. And this view is highly respected by many agnostics, and even atheists. And quite frankly, this view has to be honored because the evidence of an intelligent designer is not at all out of the question when considering the complexities within life, nature, and the cosmos. They have to submit somewhat to this logic. What they render illogical is references to God interacting with man including things like judgment, miracles, divine revelation, etc. The problem is that once you submit to the possibility of an intelligent designer (although this term is unpopular for mostly political reasons), it becomes equally illogical to assume a creator does not interact with man, provide divine revelation, and even perform miracles.

 

[Mars Man]

When you label God according to a religion (as you seem to be doing, although I might be wrong), you're inevitably going to run into all kinds of problems.

Perhaps then, we need to get to the root of this problem. At this particulard setting, I do not have the luxury of being able to read through all the posts made above--later today, maybe. I do think I have pointed it out, however, but will do it again (if in fact I had pointed it out above).

In the English language, there was a word which eventually became 'god.' This is a noun, and, it is a countable noun. Now in spoken language, we only have sounds, but in written language we have graphics. In spoken language, however, context is of importance, and will make the difference. When the tongues were blending towards Middle English, Christianity was already beginning to hold sway over other theist-involved belief systems. From the Latin (largely protected from the public at large by the Roman Catholic Church (RCC)) the pattern of identifying Yahweh by capitalizing it in the form of a proper noun, became the standard. Please take note of the bold and indigo sections especially:

From OED, p 267:


GOD I. In the original pre-Christian sense, and uses thence derived. 1. A superhuman person (regarded as masculine: see Goddess) who is worshipped as having power over nature and the fortunes of mankind; a deity. (Chiefly heathen divinities; when applied to the One Supreme Being, this sense becomes more or less modified: see 6b.

As the use of God as a proper noun has throughout the literary period of English been the predominant one, it is natural that the original heathen sense should be sometimes apprehended as a transferred use of this; 'a god', in this view, is a supposed being put in the place of God, or an imperfect conception of God in some of His attributes or relations.

2. An image or other artificial or natural object which is worshipped, either as the symbol or an unseen divinity, as supposed to be animated by his indwelling presence, or as itself possessing some kind of divine consciousness and supernatural powers; an idol.

II. In the specific Christian and monotheistic sense. The One object of supreme adoration; the Creator and Ruler of the Universe. (Now always with initial capital.) 5. As a proper name.

6. As an appellative.

a. A Being such as is understood by the proper name God;
b. With partial reversion to the general sense (see I), in contexts where the One True God is contrasted with the false gods of heathernism.​

Before Christianity had held as much sway over the English speaking people of the 14th century (or around that general period, although Bede was earlier, if my memory serves me well), the Christian biblical god as published by RCC was not public knowledge. There were any number of gods outside the Christian influence, and none of them went by the name God. It is more accurate, and of better standard, to leave the form 'God' for the Christian god model, and use Yahweh, or YHWH, for the Jewish theist-involved religious belief system's model, and Allah, for the Quranic model. The three gods are exactly three different gods; there's no mistake about that. When we speak of other gods, we should always use the god's name--almost every god every invented had been given a name.

A proper noun works in syntax like an uncountable noun. Therefore when one writes a sentence along the lines of 'when you label God according to a religion,' there is a logic error. This is true because God is best to be understood as the Christian deity alone, and Christianity is a religion. If one were intended to refer to the class, rather than the office (meaning a certain god amoung the many), they would best word it as, ' when you label a god according to a religion.' The same difference will operate for the two sentences, 'do you believe in God' and 'do you believe in gods.' In general reference, countable nouns are always pluralized.

For instance, Allah is represented in Islam as the same God of the Jews.

This is an error. That the author of the Quran made use of this political tool, the god described in the Quran does not match Yahweh so much at all. We have two different models.

The Mormons believe they worship the same God of the Jews (that Christians do), but don't consider themselves Christians*.

I do not know enough about the Mormon system to say anything about, but seriously doubt (from what little I have heard) that they worship Yahweh in their ritual. Is the descriptive passages of their information system positing a triune god? If not, they do not hold the post third century CE Christian model.

So yes, I'm talking about the Christian God, the God represented in Abrahamic religion, and who I believe is the Creator of the Universe who anyone globally can seek (or cry out to) in sincerity, and removal of local folk-loric deities.

O.K., I appreciate your making that clear. There is no present Abrahamic religion, however. I guess you have simply taken up a misnomer which is overly common. It is that which needs to be corrected, and it is that which has caused (in part) so much confusion as well. The character in the Tanakh, Abraham, worshiped Yahweh. Christianity does not, and neither does Islam.

I don't think I was implying that we can't define God linguistically. And I would like clarification of what exactly you mean by "We cannot have God without the notion of gods"? From what it looks like, and looked like in prior posts, is that we can't have the idea, or concept of an ultimate creator without first a notion of gods (plural), or lesser deities. That the concept of gods (plural) must come first. I'm thinking that you mean something different. But it's how it's coming across. At least to me.

I think you seem to have gotten it correctly. The bottom line, AquaLung, is that you hold that there is only one true god. The Christian information source claims to know of the same, that there is only one true god, and the Tanakh makes the same claim too. Of course, so did all the pre-Jewish systems too. The Jewish system had not always been around, you know. What all the best evidence concludes is that the notion of a god is where the notion from which all gods came. I know that you do not deny that there have been many, many gods and goddesses worshiped over the known history of humankind.

I agree. However, there's a difference between what the author meant, and what the Athenians collectively and individually meant.

I am not sure of what you want to assert here. It is a fact that all we have here is this handed down document, therefore a fact that we only have what the author has generally given us (with a few other hands possibly involved in a few places here and there). For this reason, I cannot make out what you wish to assert. (And see below)

I actually wasn't really referring to the author. The author was simply conveying what he knew and witnessed. Of course the fact that you think the incident may not have happened at all can be significant. But since you're not even really sure, don't you think it's potential reality (from your standpoint) could be highly relevant?

Given the general understanding, and the better evidence, we can hold this particular report as having a 50/50 chance of having happened in the way that it is given. That there is a fifty per cent chance of it having happened, however, says almost nothing other than what the report gives. There is no reason to read anything more into than just that. Extra-biblical data on Athens and the Greek theist-involved religious belief system circumstances historically, will have to be appealed to for better understanding.

I would of course like to know how it's failed the test of time (examples?).

While the details would have to be elsewhere--probably a whole different thread for just that--Yahweh's description and prescriptions of acts and promises have been proven false, and the earlier early Christian promise of his sending a Davidic King in the form of a supernatural person failed too. This totally pulls the carpet out from under the feet of later Christian doctrine. Anyway, like I said, that would take a whole thread just for itself.

And it would seem to me you would have to assume that remote peoples who prayed to "God", and receieved revelation that messengers would come bringing news of how one enters into a personal relationship with God never happened (as per the link I gave you). Can you prove that?

First of all, again, it is a fact that in the year 300 BCE, no one beyond the more immediate, general area of Israel at that time, and those left over in what is now Iraq, worshiped Yahweh. It is also a fact that in the year 300 BCE not a single person on earth worshiped God. People worshiped various gods, but God was not a god at that time yet. The very same thing is what has to be considered for what those first missionaries whom that one had collected information from (who all would absolutely have had a Christian bias anyway simply by what they were, and had been out to do) had found upon having first. I have every reason to conclude that injection of Christain bias will have occurred.

The fault here, Aqualung, is not paying attention to the contextual setting. In summary here, Cornelius, along with his household, was a worshiper of Yahweh. He was not, however, a member of the synagogue, and was of non-Jewish descent. While the story is most likely didactic in nature--thus not an actual occurrence--it is clear that the author, and the direct and immediate audience (Theophilus) held that YHWH was the god in question; not just any ole god of any theist-involved religious belief system whatever.

(referring to the above [my edit here]) Of course again, you're suggesting that this may not have happened. Since I'm assuming that at the same time you are open to the possibility that this person did exist, and the event described is accurate, how would you ultimately know what that man's conviction was? He was obviously exposed to various local gods that he didn't have a fear of. Why would he decide to fear the God of the Jews? I doubt that he was a Hebrewphile, that sort of embraced all things Hebrew. Maybe these local deities seemed superficial. There's no doubt that he was exposed to Yahweh via relatively close proximity.

You are neither reading carefully, nor accepting extra-biblical evidence, it seems. First of all, parts of that general setting are definitely non-historical in nature--in other words, they are false claims. As for the character Cornelius, what is given us in the letter that one Luke had written to one Theophilus, is the only thing to go by. We only have the contextual setting to go by. In that contextual setting, Cornelius was a practicing non-Jewish Jew. Now when and how he had converted to Judaism, or whether he had actually been a practicing Jew from infancy, like Timothy, we simply do not know, and to speculate is useless.

But the thing we have to realize is that the Bible does not give any record of peoples who were far removed from Israel and it's prophets. You can't ultimately claim that peoples in other regions of the world did/do not fear, pray, and worship the very same Yahweh. In fact, it can easily be stated that the reason Christ commanded His disciples to go out into all the world is because of people like Cornelius in far off lands.

No document which had been written for a specific local purpose which came to collected into the canon of the Tankh, in 90 CE, nor of those used by Christians at large as of around the second half of the second century, had any need or reason to do anything other than focus on the direct and immediate audience. It is a fact that there was only one Yahweh, and it is equally a fact that other peoples around the globe, as above (see that again, if need be) did not worship Yahweh. A plain ole everyday sound and valid item of knowledge. To deny that is strolling over past the grey zone into the realm of intellectual dishonesty, so I know you are not trying to argue against that.

In addition; the Ninevites repentend after receiving the news of judgment from God (the Creator).

This is myth, not historical fact. The people in the area where Nineveh had different gods which they worshiped. They did not worship Yahweh.

You are misunderstanding me. I'm not implying this at all. I'm guessing that you have read into my statements that any/all references to an ultimate creator are all one and the same. If so, you've misread my statements.

This may be, but until I can clearly see consistent usage, I am just not that sure that you are trying to assert that there is only one true god, out of all gods (and goddesses) that that god is the Christian god.

To my understanding, the Shintoists believe that the various gods are human-like (possess human traits including faults).

Yes, that is correct, to the best of my knowledge. I have never come across a description of a god model which is not human-like mentally.

The problem is that once you submit to the possibility of an intelligent designer (although this term is unpopular for mostly political reasons), it becomes equally illogical to assume a creator does not interact with man, provide divine revelation, and even perform miracles.

This is illogical, however. Going from claimed revelation to acceptence of the claim to prove that particular revelation is about as circular as one can get. Besides, all the god models have failed in the hypotheses they had put forward--but again, that would be a whole thread in and of itself.

 

[BrianLewis]

O.K., I appreciate your making that clear. There is no present Abrahamic religion, however. I guess you have simply taken up a misnomer which is overly common. It is that which needs to be corrected, and it is that which has caused (in part) so much confusion as well. The character in the Tanakh, Abraham, worshiped Yahweh. Christianity does not, and neither does Islam.

You are saying that Yahawae and "God" are different? Most people that study the Bible are aware that the word "God" is a product of the English translation. My interpretation is that the word "God" is a translator's tool to differentiate the Abrahamic God from "other" gods, referred to in the Bible as "Pagan gods."

Besides, all the god models have failed in the hypotheses they had put forward--but again, that would be a whole thread in and of itself.

I am not sure what this means. Hypothesis is a testable theory. If we theorize that an all knowing God exists, why would he theorize about anything?

 

[Mars Man]

You are saying that Yahawae and "God" are different?

That is basically it. Yahweh is the chief god of the Tanakh--as it goes without saying, actually--and yet in the later half of the second century CE, non-Jewish Christian groups generally began to really lose contact with that fact. By the later half of that century, Yahweh had become lost in the restructuring of Christian though and more original doctrine, so as that it essentially became a product of an overlaid-with-Christian-doctrine-neo-platonic house. The later late Christian doctrine, therefore, had created a different god model altogether. What that means today, then, is that the mainstream Christian deity God, is not Yahweh.

Most people that study the Bible are aware that the word "God" is a product of the English translation. My interpretation is that the word "God" is a translator's tool to differentiate the Abrahamic God from "other" gods, referred to in the Bible as "Pagan gods."

Yes, that is exactly right. That tool, actually, came from the Latin, but was applied in early English works, eventually. The standard (and it is the better one for this purpose of identification) is that the noun form 'God' is for the Christian biblical deity, and for any and all other deities, 'god' or 'goddess' were used. If the translators of the JKV, however, had paid more attention to proper methodology, they would have transliterated the actual name (as opposed to epithet, title or nickname) of the Jewish god, instead of rendering it by the misnomer 'LORD' or 'GOD.' Even if, like the American Standard, they had used the incorrect transliteration, Jehovah, it would have saved a bunch of misunderstanding and confusion. There are several translations in English which do do that, however--for example the Jerusalem Bible, the New World Translation, and I cannot recall, but I think one more English translation does.

I am not sure what this means. Hypothesis is a testable theory. If we theorize that an all knowing God exists, why would he theorize about anything?

Yes, a claim to know is testable by the content of the claim when such claim content includes aspects of nature at large which is testable. For example, the Torah's authorship's claim to know that there had been a flood by which the entire surface of the earth had been covered by a certain depth, and that certain events and human activities had occurred in a certain way, is a testable claim. I'll stop here, but this is the basic.

If a person posits, that some imaginary something is an external actuality of nature at large, and says nothing further about it, then it remains an item which cannot be tested. If however, that person then goes on to tell us stories, activities, personality and mental-like processes that are of that imagined figment, and these include aspects of nature externally and publicly objective, we can test for the accuracy and correctness of the items of the claim.

 

[BrianLewis]

One can't test thoughts. Not from another person's perspective.

 

[Mars Man]

Perhaps you may wish to be saying something slightly different? A person's linguistic thoughts, just as I have written above, can be tested if they are expressed in audible or visual forms and contain propositional content which posits especially the claim to know, as well as the detail of the constituants of the content which make statemenst about things in nature at large.

If a person has a linguistic thought which is kept in the confines of the brain that is the person's, it is a very different story--although it has been done in lab settings using as limited amount of learned data which free thought could be pursed on has been learned under imaging.

 

[AquaLung]

Perhaps then, we need to get to the root of this problem. At this particulard setting, I do not have the luxury of being able to read through all the posts made above--later today, maybe. I do think I have pointed it out, however, but will do it again (if in fact I had pointed it out above).

In the English language, there was a word which eventually became 'god.' This is a noun, and, it is a countable noun. Now in spoken language, we only have sounds, but in written language we have graphics. In spoken language, however, context is of importance, and will make the difference. When the tongues were blending towards Middle English, Christianity was already beginning to hold sway over other theist-involved belief systems. From the Latin (largely protected from the public at large by the Roman Catholic Church (RCC)) the pattern of identifying Yahweh by capitalizing it in the form of a proper noun, became the standard. Please take note of the bold and indigo sections especially:

From OED, p 267:


GOD I. In the original pre-Christian sense, and uses thence derived. 1. A superhuman person (regarded as masculine: see Goddess) who is worshipped as having power over nature and the fortunes of mankind; a deity. (Chiefly heathen divinities; when applied to the One Supreme Being, this sense becomes more or less modified: see 6b.

As the use of God as a proper noun has throughout the literary period of English been the predominant one, it is natural that the original heathen sense should be sometimes apprehended as a transferred use of this; 'a god', in this view, is a supposed being put in the place of God, or an imperfect conception of God in some of His attributes or relations.

2. An image or other artificial or natural object which is worshipped, either as the symbol or an unseen divinity, as supposed to be animated by his indwelling presence, or as itself possessing some kind of divine consciousness and supernatural powers; an idol.

II. In the specific Christian and monotheistic sense. The One object of supreme adoration; the Creator and Ruler of the Universe. (Now always with initial capital.) 5. As a proper name.

6. As an appellative.

a. A Being such as is understood by the proper name God;
b. With partial reversion to the general sense (see I), in contexts where the One True God is contrasted with the false gods of heathernism.​

Before Christianity had held as much sway over the English speaking people of the 14th century (or around that general period, although Bede was earlier, if my memory serves me well), the Christian biblical god as published by RCC was not public knowledge. There were any number of gods outside the Christian influence, and none of them went by the name God. It is more accurate, and of better standard, to leave the form 'God' for the Christian god model, and use Yahweh, or YHWH, for the Jewish theist-involved religious belief system's model, and Allah, for the Quranic model. The three gods are exactly three different gods; there's no mistake about that. When we speak of other gods, we should always use the god's name--almost every god every invented had been given a name.

A proper noun works in syntax like an uncountable noun. Therefore when one writes a sentence along the lines of 'when you label God according to a religion,' there is a logic error. This is true because God is best to be understood as the Christian deity alone, and Christianity is a religion. If one were intended to refer to the class, rather than the office (meaning a certain god amoung the many), they would best word it as, ' when you label a god according to a religion.' The same difference will operate for the two sentences, 'do you believe in God' and 'do you believe in gods.' In general reference, countable nouns are always pluralized.

Good morning Mars Man (from here anyway).

I'm running into the same problem with time, but with the little time I have @ the moment, I thought I'd respond to these quotes for now.

I think the problem here with your idea is that it really only works in a fictional setting (as I've indicated). Of course I kind of gather that you feel we are talking about fiction when referencing the Bible. If we were to discuss literature, and I kept telling you the wizard is.....(fill in the blank with description); then you would probably want to know (and rightly so) what wizard am I referring to? The Wizard of OZ? Merlin? The wizard from the Hobbit?

If someone has an awareness that an ultimate creator exists, and we happen to catch them praying, crying out, pleading, etc., and we don't know their religious upbringing; we wouldn't know if when they say "God" if they are putting a capital "G" letter on that audible sound we hear or not.

I remember a few years ago I was in the lovely city of Kamakura. I happened to walk up to some of the religious sites near the Buddha statue, and came across a wall that had pieces of paper placed on it with prayers. At the time I didn't pay attention as to whether this was part of a Buddhist temple, or Shinto shrine; but I distinctively remember reading a prayer to "God" (although I don't remember if the "G" was capitalized or not). There seems to be a global understanding that an ultimate creator exists no matter what the religious upbringing is. This may partly be due to Christian influence from colonizers and missionaries, but I think it goes beyond that.

Let's say a man originating from Brunei is stranded on a desert island, and decides to cry out to God for help. He decides not to put a name on this God, because he is not sure which one is the all-powerful creator. Let's say he eventually gets rescued, and decides to write about his adventure including his prayer to God for rescue. How should he identify God in written format?

How should Thomas Paine, a non-Christian deist have identified God? In other words, is he being unspecific here?

"I believe in one God and no more, and I hope for happiness beyond this life. I believe in the equality of man; and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow creatures happy." - The Age of Reason, Part 1, 1793

 

[Mars Man]

Good morning Mars Man (from here anyway).

I'm running into the same problem with time, but with the little time I have @ the moment, I thought I'd respond to these quotes for now.

And good morning from the roof of Japan, the foothills of the Northern Japan Alps! Yes, time is a commodity which is hard to store for more use of it at a later point within itself. When you can, I look forward to exchange.

I think the problem here with your idea is that it really only works in a fictional setting (as I've indicated). Of course I kind of gather that you feel we are talking about fiction when referencing the Bible. If we were to discuss literature, and I kept telling you the wizard is.....(fill in the blank with description); then you would probably want to know (and rightly so) what wizard am I referring to? The Wizard of OZ? Merlin? The wizard from the Hobbit?

Well, that there is some amount of information within the documents which came to make up that single book we today call the Bible that is not actual (that is, false claim), is a fact, or course, but there is some amount which is exactly literature, and some which is essentially poetry alone--as well as some which is simply correspondence. However, what I sense here, is that we do have a need to be more historically accurate and correct--that is, we must adhere to chronologically fixed facts. I will refrain from quoting, trusting that what I am responding towards will be understood.

We cannot talk about this as though it were simply an English speaking matter of just today, in our general time period (19th century to date). No, we have to firstly and primarily consider all the linguistic groups of culturally defined social in-groups of ages way past, and go from there. We have a most practical, sound, and reasonable need (methodologically correct) to do so. The notion of deity is much older than even Judaism, and of course Christianity, therefore to reason from the stand point of either of those alone, is an error in reasoning and historical consideration. This is an absolute fact that we cannot ignore while considering the circumstances of even presently reached positions.

Holding the application of the verb phrase "have awareness" aside (due to focus and topic concerns at the moment), an ultimate (in the sense of the highest in office) god is not something new. There have been a number of ultimate gods across the span of recorded human activity. These peoples did not communicate in English, and the matter of identification by English punctuation rules is completely non-applicable.

In investigating the information sources that we have--including archaeological findings which evidence activity of a theist-involved religious belief nature--we find that by far most gods and goddesses had names. Well now, that it is just a common sense matter, because we find, even in ages back, that people had names, and places had names, or, descriptions which generally amounted to proper noun phrases. It is most clear that when folks had written of their gods and/or goddesses, they used the names in all cases of contextual setting dealing with that particular deity; with words in the original language which are assigned the English 'god' or 'goddess' in translation, appearing within the contextual setting wherein which particular deity is being spoken of, is usually clear.

Therefore, we do not find the case hardly at all where a given people of a given theist-involved religious belief system do an act of worship, or ritual, to a god or goddess which they know nothing at all about--as though they had just suddenly woken up one morning and had thought to themselves, something along the lines of, 'oh... there must be a god... I'll do an act of worship to that god.' It just didn't happen this way, and we know that; it's fact.

For this reason, any particular thought experiment which ignores the fact, is useless and meaningless. For this reason, we know that Thomas Paine was talking within the Christian information system that Christendom but only had. I mean, we can look at Hobbes, at Locke, at Hume, and even at Kant and all the other thinkers of Christendom, and well will very easily see that. Why of course they had every one of them been born into and raised within the Christian information source publishing of a single god at the top, with only one lessor god below--namely Satan. (And I always find it so silly that that supernatural male being who has control over people's lives and such [in other words, a god], got the name pinned on him so early on, while those Christians of the later second century had totally been lost to Yahweh.)

So some facts that we have to keep in mind while considering this, are as follows. Human society began to take on hierarchal structure surely even before agricultural city-states begin to happen, and as can be seen in the earliest records, warrior kings were on top. That gods and goddess thus were put in such terms is of no big surprise. Gods and goddesses that came into fashion almost always had names--a very natural human trait, as can easily be understood. Therefore while the nature of hierarchal structure put a god on top of all others, we find (as is so natural, as well) competition for that position among the several gods and goddesses--both within a system, and (in a different way) across systems.

We can of course find that in the documents which came to be put into the library of canon which later became that single volume book we call the Bible today. I trust you (and other readers) will have your own copy (copies) of the Bible, so will only give some (not all) of the locations identifying such. If you could see them in the original tongue, it would help, so a couple of the easier to see ones I'll put out in that form too. The below list, again, is not exhaustive.

Ex 20:5b; 32:1b; 34:14 לא תשתחוה לאל אחר כי יהוה קנא שמו אל קנא הוא) [יהוה =Yahweh], 15; Deut 3:23, 24; 4:2-3; 10:17; Josh 23:6, 7; Judges 3:6; 8:33; 11:24; 16:23, 24; 1 Sam 5:1-12; Ps 81:9, 10a; 136:2a; Dan 11:36, 37; Joel 2:26b, 27a; Micah 4:5 ( ...בשם אלהיו ... ...בשם-יהוה אלהינו...) [יהוה =Yahweh]) ; Acts 14:11-13.

It is most clear that the Tanakh even, identifies a number of other gods besides the one they held to be the true god of all (all the rest simply being lessor gods, or non-realities... especially in Second Temple documents). The one true and highest god was YWHW. However, the other systems held their gods to be true gods, and YHWH was lessor, or was not a real fact of nature. And of course, all the believers believed in their own, right? That goes without saying back then in those days.

In final conclusion here, we cannot pin our English grammatical tooling on other, and much earlier tongues. Our tooling is for the purpose of identifying and distinguishing (primarily) the later early Christian biblical god from other gods that others worshiped. Names should always be transliterated, and the names of the gods being talked about should always be used. The god-a-la-top-hancho of the Tanakh was Yahweh, and when specifically talking about that god, his name should be used. It saves a lot of confusion and potential trouble in misunderstanding.

 

[BrianLewis]

Additionally, it had been asserted that any redemption folk lore implied the expectation of the messianic redemption lore, which is a logical fallacy. All gods and goddesses, on the other hand, are the creations of human beings, be that by hallucination, illusion, or delusion, or not, so we don't really need to worry about the states of minds of those who left their legacies in the various theist-involved religious belief systems spread down through recorded human history.

That's an opinion. You should be careful stating opinions as facts, especially if you like to use big words. Some people that have trouble with the language might mistake a large vocabulary for knowledge.

 

[Mars Man]

That's an opinion.

Yes, that is partially right. It is an opinion of sorts. It is not a merely imagined-out-of-the-blue opinion, however. The opinion is found on valid logical exercise, and does take into consideration things like chronological order of events across spatial domains, sub-cultural social groups, and differences in pre-instilled basis for the several overall doctrines involved. It amounts to an 'as good as fact' understanding. A person is always free to put forth evidence for counter arguments, of course. As it is, what I have said stands.

 

[AquaLung]

Yes, that is partially right. It is an opinion of sorts. It is not a merely imagined-out-of-the-blue opinion, however. The opinion is found on valid logical exercise, and does take into consideration things like chronological order of events across spatial domains, sub-cultural social groups, and differences in pre-instilled basis for the several overall doctrines involved. It amounts to an 'as good as fact' understanding. A person is always free to put forth evidence for counter arguments, of course. As it is, what I have said stands.

There are some pitfalls involved with these as good as fact understandings in general. But first off, one of the problems the suggested researchers inevitably run into on the topic of redemptive analogy is that they are contending with those who literally lived out in the field with various remote tribal peoples (at least in a number of cases). To be quite frank, most research involving Christianity targets the U.S. market. They don't seem to want to touch the foreign field.

And generally speaking, the way things are worded by researchers can lead people astray. One example is the reference to why people choose certain religions. They use a, or certain percentages indicating the chances of what religion one will choose based on the major religion of their community (usually referring to their nation; Christian-U.S., Hindu-India, etc.). There's some truth to this, but it's really only in a more cultural fashion. But this has lead many it seems into believing this is an absolute. They generally will overlook China where by this rule, adding the persecution, there really should be no Christians at all. And for myself, if I were to have chosen a religion by this rule, I would probably be a Buddhist, a Russian Orthodox, or a Roman Catholic. There was virtually no chance of me becoming an evangelical Christian even though I live and grew up in the U.S.

Strangely enough, there have been some who were so dogmatic about this cultural influence, that they either kept forgetting my background, or thought I was lying, or just figured I don't know my own background. Some it seems will try to squeeze into what won't fit, just to meet the demands of some general theories with only partial truths.

I have listened to on one occasion, an author who made particular claims where he literally told an interviewer he should not have wrote a particular statement (when confronted about it's illogical, and prejudicial nature). The interview was probably remote enough to where few would listen to it. And chances are people believe to this day that the statement is as good as fact. More than likely in my opinion, this happens more than we know. So there's probably a number of statements taken as fact because they sound impressive, that the author is not really sure about himself.

In my opinion, the very top level experts in any field will be the more likely to admit to something they really don't know. But I think a lot of books are written in such a way that they project the idea that the author is sure, when he may very well not be. There's countless people who wrote an impressive enough thesis to get their Masters degree, went on to write a book where their credentials (including the word expert) is written on the sleeve. And because their theories sound impressive enough, what they say seems to get taken as fact.

 

[Mars Man]

Yes, AquaLung, I am aware of the over emphasized leans that can be found. Like you point out (and I of course agree with almost all, if not all, of the conscientious care you are highlighting a need to be careful about, in your above), we have a need to diligently search out as much secure data as possible. You have made a good post.

I also wish to point out, at the same time, that the way I use 'as good as fact,' will more likely found to be more precise of a thing than what you have generally pointed too above. In sociology studies, surveys of populations with statistical analysis, and so forth, we will always find a margin of error. That can be, and we will note, at times is, misused. Of course, at the same time, we will always have to keep in mind that we are all human beings. That means that in any field of endeavor, or human activity, we will, without failure, find the occasional 'free-rider,' the occasional cheat, and that from time to time fraudulent and deceitful actor, and/or behavior. As has been stated quite clear, quite correctly, on a number of occasions, most are not like that. We have to keep our eyes out for those who are, and hold the strength and clarity of mind to blow the whistle, when we find such.

Of course that portion of my reply to BrianLewis above, had been in response to his comment on what I had said earlier, which is talking about historical development which is understood and clear. That portion of understanding is as good as fact in the manner that I use that expression. 'It is as good as fact' is referring to a theory (again, just in case, a theory is stronger in supporting evidence for its proposition of understanding, than a mere hypothesis) which has been so well demonstrated that we might as well go ahead and call it a fact.

That photons have mass, is as good as fact. That E=mc2 is as good as fact. That quantum time-space jumps (those spooky events) can occur, is as good as fact. That Neanderthals and ourselves interbred up to about 4% is as good as fact. That the Israelite tribes were polytheistic before uniting into a nation state, is as good as fact. That pre-Hebrew texts describe believed-in creator gods which we quite different from that which the Hebrew theist-involved religious belief system eventually developed, is as good as fact. That water was once more easily accessible on Mars is as good as fact. That the earlier early Christians worshiped Yahweh is as good as fact; and so on and so forth.

That the sun is a star, is a fact. That Thursday comes before Friday is a fact. That the hippocampal structures are necessary for long term potentiation is a fact. That Yahweh is not Allah is a fact. That the loss of Jewish temple in 70 CE resulted in the loss of the Sadducee sect is a fact; and so on and so forth.

This is how I use that term. That is a good and informative post you have made, AquaLung.

 

[AquaLung]

That Neanderthals and ourselves interbred up to about 4% is as good as fact.

Good morning Mars Man (hope all is well on the roof of Japan!)!

Point well taken, and thanks for further explanation. I of course read your entire post, and am focusing on this particular quote as sort of a point of contact with Evolution (considered theory and fact by many). I'm more assuming that this quote was meant as to be in an Evolutionary light, but it seems it's structure would indicate it to mean much more than inter-ethnic, or interracial breeding.

Of course there are different opinions as to whether or not neanderthals were completely human. But the main point I wish to get across is that the issue of Creationism and Evolution (when we get down to the nitty-gritty, this is where the dust storm is at it's greatest in my opinion), we're talking about a very political and religious issue. If anyone thinks there's a missing link between Creationism and Evolution, one need look no further than politics and religion.

To give a for instance, one would think the idea of evidence pointing towards dinosaurs living among humans would be an exciting (at least possible) discovery. The artwork of a number of Latin American tribes for instance reveal uncanny resemblances to our extinct friends. This, I would think, would cause a scientific euphoria for scientists big and small. However, it basically doesn't. And a big part of this in my opinion is that there had been prior comments made by evolutionists that if paleontology (or whatever science applicable) were to reveal that dinos ever coexisted with humans, Evolution would be blown out of the water. It seems that the evidence is strong enough now for at least some to change their point of view (while retaining the evolutionary theory, but the excitement is noticeably from my perception not there).

While it can certainly be stated that Creationists study science in light of the Bible (or have a bias), the same holds true for Evolutionists. For instance, in evaluating the age of the Universe, the Creationist is stuck with the problem of light-time travel. So Creationists are researching possibilities on how this may have happened within the given time frame noted in Genesis. The Evolutionist is stuck with the problem of similar temperatures between vast distances, which would be impossible under the Big Bang model. So Evolutionists are researching possibilities as to why this is while remaining within the confines of the Big Bang theory.

Of course one of the major arenas of politics within the conflict is education. In an effort to keep religion out of the classroom, it's forced to keep Creation Science and/or Intelligent Design out as well, because it can lead people to religion (usually Christianity). So the question becomes, are Evolutionary scientists being close-minded because they have to refute Creationism to maintain a secular environment?

I wish to note that there are misconceptions that all Creation scientists reject scientific evidence in favor of Biblical Creationism. This is not true. There are Creation scientists who began embracing the theory of evolution, and changed their view due to what they perceived as flaws within Evolution. What does seem very common is for a Creation scientist to embrace religion (usually Christianity) at some point, whether it's a re-commitment to the faith based on a change of scientific view; or perhaps becoming new to the faith.

Anyways, I hope I didn't go too far off track here. And I'm enjoying the conversation.

That Yahweh is not Allah is a fact.

The questions would be (unless one insists that neither actually exist), are both one and the same; but one being misrepresented, or misunderstood? Does just one of the two exist, and the other non-existent? Or is one legit, and the other a spiritual deception (a Satanic figure posing as the One True God)?

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

"While it can certainly be stated that Creationists study science in light of the Bible (or have a bias), the same holds true for Evolutionists. For instance, in evaluating the age of the Universe, the Creationist is stuck with the problem of light-time travel. So Creationists are researching possibilities on how this may have happened within the given time frame noted in Genesis. The Evolutionist is stuck with the problem of similar temperatures between vast distances, which would be impossible under the Big Bang model. So Evolutionists are researching possibilities as to why this is while remaining within the confines of the Big Bang theory."

That's incorrect. Recent observations show variations in the cosmic background radiation, which reflect variations in the Big Bang that gave rise to structures (stars, galaxies) in the universe.

It is also not true that Darwinian evolutionists are stuck in dogma as much as Biblical creationists. Such an argument reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how science works. In fact, any scientist who could discover a better theory for explaining the myriad species of life that live and have lived on the earth would make quite a name for himself in history.

But in 150 years of serious study of the problem, no such theory has survived.

 

[Mark of Zorro]

Well, I have to agree that there is bias among individual scientists that does lead them to try to preserve the status quo and misdirect scientific thinking in other ways. People tend to operate more off of memory than off of actual critical thought. But whoever Roland quoted above is over-stating the case, and trying to make it look like there is an equality there between the two that does not exist. Just as Roland says, its the Creationist stuck in pure and patently ridiculous dogma, not the Evolutionist.

I might also also add that some people calling themselves "scientists" are in fact not very sharp and think many don't even understand evolution and Darwin's works properly in the first place. Creationists tend to be even worse though.