The Origin of the Gods

[quatona]

Either natural events are caused or not. If so the cause must be non natural. If not then natural events have no cause, because a cause must be different from the effect. Logical?

No.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

I'm done debating.

It's obvious that you are not interested in being the least bit charitable with what I have to say.

That's just about the first factually correct thing you've said in this entire thread.

I subject beliefs to the same standard of scrutiny, no matter what they are or who believes them. If they don't stand up, they will be dismissed without ceremony. Charity does not enter the equation at any point.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Either natural events are caused or not.

Good so far...

If so the cause must be non natural. If not then natural events have no cause, because a cause must be different from the effect.

BZZZZZZZZT! Wrong. Thanks for playing.

Tectonic activity causes earthquakes.

Natural cause, natural effect.

There are innumerable other examples, of course, but one is all it takes to prove this assertion wrong.

Logical?

Not remotely logical. Or factual.

 

[madaz]

Premise 1: The naturalistic explanation for the source of our God concepts is lacking or incomplete.

First you must establish the existence of said entities before we can move on to discuss origins of said entities.

Premise 2: Deities could not have emerged out of nowhere but have some basis.

The basis of deities is within one's imagination, they emerge or originate from this basis.

Premise 3: If the naturalistic explanation is inadequate than one must turn to a different explanation.

Why? we have made this error numerously over the course of human history with phenomena like eclipses, thunder, lightning, rainbows, tides and diseases to name a few. All these phenomena now have natural explanations thanks to science.

Premise 4: If the naturalistic explanation is false than one must turn to a supernaturalistic explanation as there is no middle ground.

Premise 4 demonstrates clearly that we cant take you seriously.

Conclusion: The Gods must exist, or must have existed.

Wonderbeat-Do you accept your argument is unsound?

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Good so far...



BZZZZZZZZT! Wrong. Thanks for playing.

Tectonic activity causes earthquakes.

Natural cause, natural effect.

There are innumerable other examples, of course, but one is all it takes to prove this assertion wrong.



Not remotely logical. Or factual.

I mean the set of natural events as a whole. Either has a cause (non-natural) or is uncaused.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

I mean the set of natural events as a whole.

Explain what you mean by 'set of natural events as a whole'. Just say 'universe', if that's what you mean.

Either has a cause (non-natural) or is uncaused.

Prove it. Prove that this is a true dichotomy.

After you've done that, you can provide a positive ontology for what you mean by 'non-natural', and explain the mechanism by which it interacts with nature.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Explain what you mean by 'set of natural events as a whole'. Just say 'universe', if that's what you mean.

Natural part of the universe.

Prove it. Prove that this is a true dichotomy.

Causes precede effects, in ordinary language, as oproduction is temporal. (cause: that which prioduces and effect).

After you've done that, you can provide a positive ontology for what you mean by 'non-natural', and explain the mechanism by which it interacts with nature.

There is no needfor a "precise ontology" and I dont thingk one can be given anyway. yet, meachanism I suppose involves mechanics, which involves machinery, matter, natural stuff. So you have asked the impossible from a logical pov.

 

[quatona]

Natural part of the universe.

You are assuming there is a non-natural part of the universe?

 

[madaz]

Search youtube for "History of God."

I would rather watch grass grow.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Natural part of the universe.

Effects in the 'natural part of the universe' all have natural causes. There is no need to invoke anything 'supernatural'.

Causes precede effects, in ordinary language, as oproduction is temporal. (cause: that which prioduces and effect).

This does not prove that 'non-natural cause vs. uncaused' is a true dichotomy.

There is no needfor a "precise ontology"

Positive ontology, not 'precise' ontology, and yes, there is. Otherwise, it means nothing, as 'non-natural' only tells us what it isn't. Any statement referring to 'non-natural' is cognitively vacuous, since it doesn't actually refer to anything.

I dont thingk one can be given anyway.

Then there's nothing to discuss. 'Non-natural' is an empty concept that can be dismissed out of hand.

yet, meachanism I suppose involves mechanics, which involves machinery, matter, natural stuff.

No it doesn't. You're committing an equivocation fallacy, between 'mechanism' as in 'parts of a machine', and 'mechanism' as in 'process by which something takes place'.

What I'm asking is how does the 'non-natural' causally integrate with nature?

Which you can answer after you've provided a positive ontology for 'non-natural'.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Effects in the 'natural part of the universe' all have natural causes. There is no need to invoke anything 'supernatural'.

So how did the natural come into being? Or did it not come into being. If it did come into being what caused it, because if cause precedes effect it cannot cause itself afaict. If it did not come into being then how could it have a cause?

This does not prove that 'non-natural cause vs. uncaused' is a true dichotomy.

So what caused the natural?

Positive ontology, not 'precise' ontology, and yes, there is. Otherwise, it means nothing, as 'non-natural' only tells us what it isn't. Any statement referring to 'non-natural' is cognitively vacuous, since it doesn't actually refer to anything.

Ok I am not expert but the soul is regarded as non-natural; or "preternatural". So we know consciousness by intuition, and it may be non natural but capable of being indicated.

BTW I am generally physicalist regarding consciousness but believe there is room for doubt and that physicalist's "knowledge" of physicalism in my case is certainly quite speculative or uncertain, a function of hopeful (yet perhaps wise) induction, heuristic and analogy rather than demonstrably clear.

Then there's nothing to discuss. 'Non-natural' is an empty concept that can be dismissed out of hand.

Ok I am trying.

No it doesn't. You're committing an equivocation fallacy, between 'mechanism' as in 'parts of a machine', and 'mechanism' as in 'process by which something takes place'.

Are you saying a process (non-natural affecting the natural) must be known in order for a substance (the non-natural) to exist, or be postulated to exist? Is there such a thing as mental causation, and if so when people are ignorant of its nature does that mean it cannot be postulated cognitively (meaningfully)?

What I'm asking is how does the 'non-natural' causally integrate with nature?

I dont know. Maybe psychokinesis, but that would be "unexplained".

Which you can answer after you've provided a positive ontology for 'non-natural'.

BTW can you define natural? Can you explain the process whereby consciousness causes changes in the natural domain. How exactly does qualitative pain cause avoidance and pleasure cause pursuit?

 

[quatona]

So what caused the natural?

Seeing that causality is what we observe within nature (natural events have natural effects) there is absolutely nothing logical about concluding that nature itself is caused, and even less about concluding that something non-natural can cause something natural - provided there is something non-natural, in the first place.
All that just doesn´t follow.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

If you want my natiuralist explanation of belief in Gods it is the sociel areas of the brain interpreting natural phenomenon. We are social animals, wired to seek and find, and understand human communicaiton. So the saying "theology is anthropology" meaning talking about God we may be talking about ourselves may be truue. A greek philosopher said that humans make gods in mans image, and animals would make gods in their own image. Apparently that is our natural state, to see animist and intentional trends in nature, and we ould learn atheism later on. But can become recedivist due to stress. I think that understanding that a mystical interpretation of nature may be instinctive, and IIRC Dawkins recognises this, may help to diffuse tensions between atheists bent on deconverting believers, and the believers themselves.

 

[Eudaimonist]

If you want my natiuralist explanation of belief in Gods it is the sociel areas of the brain interpreting natural phenomenon. We are social animals, wired to seek and find, and understand human communicaiton. So the saying "theology is anthropology" meaning talking about God we may be talking about ourselves may be truue. A greek philosopher said that humans make gods in mans image, and animals would make gods in their own image. Apparently that is our natural state, to see animist and intentional trends in nature, and we ould learn atheism later on. But can become recedivist due to stress. I think that understanding that a mystical interpretation of nature may be instinctive, and IIRC Dawkins recognises this, may help to diffuse tensions between atheists bent on deconverting believers, and the believers themselves.

I agree with that. Good thoughts.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Would you agree that the God concept can act as a form of something like hypnotic induction? If not sending people into literal trance, then influencing self concepts through formation of ego ideal and the blending of "God consciousness" with "self consciousness".

"He is in us and we are in him... he is the vine and we are the branches."

 

[Eudaimonist]

Would you agree that the God concept can act as a form of something like hypnotic induction? If not sending people into literal trance, then influencing self concepts through formation of ego ideal and the blending of "God consciousness" with "self consciousness".

I'm not certain that I agree precisely, but I do agree that a God-concept (including polytheistic god-concepts) can have psychological effects on one's ego.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[GrowingSmaller]

In my experience of theism when i focus on god, the object of attention whilst being revered and other, also through a kind of feedback and fusion "mixes with self" like clean and coloured water mixing. The rays of the sun touch and warm the soul. Love is sparked, and god is love. Oxytocin, serotonin - yeah! Nearness..can 2 walk together unless of one mind?

 

[Ken-1122]

What say you people about the origin of the gods? Are they only myths?

I believe they are myths; I believe humans are always looking for answers and often they would rather have a comforting wrong answer over no answer at all.

If so, how are they only myths? What is your evidence?

History is full of examples of primitive people mistaking humans from another land with more technology as Gods rather than just people like themselves with more technology. If beings from another planet came to Earth during a time that all humans were primitive, I believe they would have assumed those beings were Gods rather than beings like themselves with more technology.

If that evidence is lacking, internally inconsistent, or otherwise implausible, how willing are you to accept that the gods are in fact real?

If Gods were proven to be real I would be more than willing to accept that as fact. I ain’t holdin my breath though

Ken

 

[Tnmusicman]

Christians are atheists to all the other gods that have ever "existed."

Christians aren't atheists because we believe in God. To be an atheist you must believe in NO God. That being said I understand what you are saying but it's not an accurate way to say it.

 

[Rilke's Granddaughter]

Christians aren't atheists because we believe in God. To be an atheist you must believe in NO God. That being said I understand what you are saying but it's not an accurate way to say it.

Not quite. Atheists lack belief in gods. They may believe no gods exist, but that's not usually required. I speak in broadest sense.