Why and how do you even know that God would be limited to being just one entity?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Creating your own personal God and religion
- Thread starter The Transcended Omniverse
- Start date
interminable
منتظر
According to causality first cause is a creator of everything so
If first cause is limited what has limited that???
Everything that u say in answer would be contradiction to our assumption that nothing was before the first cause.
Actually if something can limit the first cause it means first cause is not first cause anymore and it's against infinite regress
Read a couple of responses but chose to respond on my own before reading entire thread.
It's interesting that you say "the gods demand you worship them or be punished and tormented in hell" and don't see that as making things up. Along with a few of your other assertions.
Also interesting that you apparently don't see 'making something up, passing it along, and having people believe it' as outside domain of religion. Heck just look at "the" scientific method as perfect example that it's not only religion that does this. Some people want you/everyone to believe that this is the best method around. The made up, mythological one.
Know you weren't asking me, but a story wishes to be told about this idea. There are many tales that can be told about the notion of creating gods, so here's one such tale.
Our tale begins with a question: "if I were to create a god or gods, what would it/they be like?"
What this question does is bypass culturally-ingrained teachings about what god(s) are and are not. It prompts us to throw out whatever it is that other people told us about what god(s) are and decide for ourselves what god(s) would be if we were the authors of the story. This is a very important step, because our thoughts about theology and theism are strongly influenced by what our culture has taught us about these things. These cultural narratives are so constraining that people are unable to recognize that the things they might name are god(s). There's not a thing they could name that isn't recognized as a deity within the framework of some other cultural mythology that is poorly known or understood in their culture. And recognizing that begins with such a simple question: what if you decided what god(s) were and designed them yourself?
It is less about creating god(s) than finding them. What comes out of answering this question - in addition to freeing oneself from the constraints our culture has placed on our thinking about god(s) - is a personal understanding of god(s) that is an expression of our values or the things we deem of worth.
That is an arbitrary limitation. There is no "a priori" reason to believe that there is such a thing as a first cause, be that cause a conscious creator or anything else.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Yep. Think of a family or two parents working together.
interminable
منتظر
Come on
In your case father doesn't have the power of mother and vice versa so with each other can be omnipotent but separately when we look at them they are different existents
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
I think I see what you mean. Why would one call it god(s) though? I understand creating our own values and ways of expression. That's literally my religion: expressive art in all forms. However, calling it god is going back to what our culture wants us to think "important things" are. They have to be from god and if not, they are of no value.
I'd say instead of creating gods, we should create our own values and ways of living. We should find what works for us and how we see these things as important. Whether one wants to call these things god, is personal preference. However, to take what you believe (from what I gather on RF), sun spirit and moon spirit aren't made up. There is an actual moon and an actual sun. Whatever values you attach to your gods and what you name it is your preference. How I see it is sun is sun and moon is moon.
In general and in relation to the OP (just using your belief to make a point), why say "create your own god" instead of create your own values you find most important?
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Nope. They work together because they are both parents and both take care of the family. It is good that there are two parents (two gods) that know how to parent a child (who know everything) because each parent has their own plate to bring to the table. Even if they were twins, that wouldn't devalue either god. It's team work.
The limitations you place on an omnipotent God amaze me.
Let me see if I can put this simply.
Deification isn't just about identifying that which is valued, but identifying objects of worship. Deification typically involves some level of mythopoeticism or personification that is absent in a non-theistic "just values" approach. The valued thing is transformed into a character that can be related to as a person, and thus worshiped through various means, such as creative storytelling or theatrical rituals. It makes it a mindfully religious activity as opposed to... well... not.
But honestly, it's all rather po-tay-to, po-tah-to. The mass carries the weight, not the paint job.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Interesting.
If I compared the two, would it be:
1. Deity approach: Seeing an object or person of worship that or who is personified as different values? For example, Bodhisattvas aren't considered deities. If they were, some Bodhisattvas and Buddhas represent love, some protection, others the "darker side" of human nature. Something I learned going to a Vietnamese temple. They have their individuals stories.
2. Values approach: Seeing values as values without needing to deify it to find it important without need for worship.
Does that sound about right?
If so, I don't see the deity approach. The Spirits are just like us just as our ancestors. I have an altar for remembrance and well being and personal communication; but worship? My grandmother would smack me if I bowed down to worship her if she were alive today.
I feel things are more valued (maybe a better definition deification I'm making up) if they are seen as they are not as personifications of what we want them to be. I know it helps when it comes to passing down stories. I hope there is a difference between passing down stories for example of a value rather than passing down a deity as if it were a value.
If that makes sense?
That makes sense. Kind of what I was going for above. It's not something our culture is used to like pagan cultures. I do see value in both having this and not having this. Or having personification and seeing things at face value. That doesn't mean that non-personified things are, how would I say, not seen as spiritual (lack of better words) it just means, taking Christianity as an example, if I go to god, I go straight to god not a personification of god through jesus.
I see it useful as in story telling you mentioned. I wasn't raised in a culture to see it that way; so, I kinda miss out on the boat. It's very helpful and I wish I had that. Though, I try not to see what I have in a lesser view than what cultural religions have. It's hard not to see that "me vs. them" view.
Something I'd like to get out of someday.
Isn't deity different than god(s)? For example, I do not believe deities exist. If I did, they wouldn't be persons or personifications of worship. However, we can make anything or anyone (a personification?) an object or person of worship-a god.
If I compared the two, would it be:
1. Deity approach: Seeing an object or person of worship that or who is personified as different values? For example, Bodhisattvas aren't considered deities. If they were, some Bodhisattvas and Buddhas represent love, some protection, others the "darker side" of human nature. Something I learned going to a Vietnamese temple. They have their individuals stories.
2. Values approach: Seeing values as values without needing to deify it to find it important without need for worship.
Does that sound about right?
If so, I don't see the deity approach. The Spirits are just like us just as our ancestors. I have an altar for remembrance and well being and personal communication; but worship? My grandmother would smack me if I bowed down to worship her if she were alive today.
I feel things are more valued (maybe a better definition deification I'm making up) if they are seen as they are not as personifications of what we want them to be. I know it helps when it comes to passing down stories. I hope there is a difference between passing down stories for example of a value rather than passing down a deity as if it were a value.
If that makes sense?
That makes sense. Kind of what I was going for above. It's not something our culture is used to like pagan cultures. I do see value in both having this and not having this. Or having personification and seeing things at face value. That doesn't mean that non-personified things are, how would I say, not seen as spiritual (lack of better words) it just means, taking Christianity as an example, if I go to god, I go straight to god not a personification of god through jesus.
I see it useful as in story telling you mentioned. I wasn't raised in a culture to see it that way; so, I kinda miss out on the boat. It's very helpful and I wish I had that. Though, I try not to see what I have in a lesser view than what cultural religions have. It's hard not to see that "me vs. them" view.
Something I'd like to get out of someday.
jonathan180iq
Well-Known Member
In other words, you don't know...
You've not thoroughly argued your claims.
You've not supported your conclusions.
You've not explained how you reached those conclusions without such evidence.
You've merely posited a logical thought experiment, and cited a bunch of your own word salad.
How do you get from your logical thought experiment to concluding that Allah exists, and is the supreme lone deity of the Universe and creator of all?
Unfortunately for them, the bar for miracles is harder to clear. We just never seem to get an eclipse or comet that isn't predictable these days.
Ahem.
interminable
منتظر
I tried to find some common ground between ourselves but the more I try the more I lose my hope [emoji16] [emoji16]
interminable
منتظر
If u read my previous posts u will find that two necessary existents can't be existed at all that u need to answer to another big question that is about their existence.
Which one is older? Who created them?
And u will involve with infinite regress and u will understand that two necessary existents can't be existed.
interminable
منتظر
Did u open that link?
Didn't I prove the existence of first cause that is creator of everything after him??????
interminable
منتظر
Actually I didn't get
psychoslice
Veteran Member
There is no reason to create anything, just use your intelligence and see what is there, if it sounds ridiculous, then it probably is, its funny how many years ago people would believe in anything, but today you just cannot get away with it, were just too smart for that.
interminable
منتظر
God had never made the situation so that everything is clear and there isn't any doubt or pretexts.
I mean God has prepared for both sides what they can resort to prove or reject
Gnostics say first we see the existence of God then the other existents
If God wanted to show himself to us it wasn't hard but he wanted to see who will prefer his reason on his passion.
Come to think of it some infidels said why we didn't become prophets
See
Pretexts will never end