Culture and god

[thomas t]

The fallacy is appeal to majority: if the majority says it is true, it must be true.

but that wasn't what I was talking about.
I said, when the masses like (!) it, it serves as evidence for a loving creator.
My point was about popularity and taste, not claimed truth.

My music example referred to me. I am a solo musician.
It's just me and my producer. That one is good, I can't blame him for anything, it's all my fault (I still do like my own music, though).

if you see nature and say "that's god" there must have been some support that brought you to that conclusion. Since we all don't have the same criteria to confirm that nature is created by the christian god, how else can one know just by nature alone (if it's obvious)?

actually, beauty is the evidence for a loving creator. That's it already. Isn't it great as evidence?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

but that wasn't what I was talking about.
I said, when the masses like (!) it, it serves as evidence for a loving creator.
My point was about popularity and taste, not claimed truth.

My music example referred to me. I am a solo musician.
It's just me and my producer. That one is good, I can't blame him for anything, it's all my fault (I still do like my own music, though).

Evidence of a loving creator exist because the masses like it?

Popularity and taste doesn't mean god is the creator, it just means majority believe so. Unless I'm totally missing what you're saying (! ?)

actually, beauty is the evidence for a loving creator. That's it already. Isn't it great as evidence?

It doesn't speak on its own. I'm always in beauty as with many, but it doesn't all lead to the christian god. Paganism (to those Pagans who revere nature) is a huge example of this.

That and how did you get "loving" creator from the awe of nature?

Creation, if one likes, in itself doesn't show love. It just is. We put attributes and meaning on creation that in itself does not exist. If I am wrong, how?

 

[Valjean]

but that wasn't what I was talking about.
I said, when the masses like (!) it, it serves as evidence for a loving creator.
My point was about popularity and taste, not claimed truth.

My music example referred to me. I am a solo musician.
It's just me and my producer. That one is good, I can't blame him for anything, it's all my fault (I still do like my own music, though).

actually, beauty is the evidence for a loving creator. That's it already. Isn't it great as evidence?

Historically, the masses are usually wrong. They were wrong about Quetzalcoatl, they were wrong about Isis, they were wrong about Athena, they were wrong about Apollo, They were wrong about Thor. They were wrong about Ahura Mazda,
Why would you expect today's theology to be any different?

As long as popular opinion is not based on evidenced, tested, predictive, repeatable facts, it is nothing more than hearsay.

 

[thomas t]

Evidence of a loving creator exist because the masses like it?

Popularity and taste doesn't mean god is the creator, it just means majority believe so. Unless I'm totally missing what you're saying (! ?)

No, you didn't miss what I was saying.
If a friend gives you a bunch of flowers and he beforehand elects the bunch he knows you will like... this is evidence of what? Love? Yeah exactly: love.
Same with God, I think. He chooses the countrysides you like, as I see it. The beauty that you and others found in nature is the evidence as I see it.

It doesn't speak on its own. I'm always in beauty as with many, but it doesn't all lead to the christian god. Paganism (to those Pagans who revere nature) is a huge example of this.

That and how did you get "loving" creator from the awe of nature?

Creation, if one likes, in itself doesn't show love. It just is. We put attributes and meaning on creation that in itself does not exist. If I am wrong, how?

Creation shows love inasmuch the bunch of flowers shows love, as I see it.
At least it's evidence for love, in my opinion.
See above please.

Well I don't know my way around with pagan Gods.
If they are loving too, and if they are said to have created the universe... we need the next bit of evidence.
In this thread you asked for some evidence, at least, so I chose beauty as perceived by man.

 

[thomas t]

As long as popular opinion is not based on evidenced, tested, predictive, repeatable facts, it is nothing more than hearsay.

ok.
Lets apply it to the following:

They were wrong about Quetzalcoatl,

prove it.

they were wrong about Isis,

prove it.

they were wrong about Athena,

prove it.

they were wrong about Apollo,

prove it.

They were wrong about Thor.

prove it.

They were wrong about Ahura Mazda,

prove it.

You came up with the positive claim(s).
Now the onus is on you to provide the evidenced, tested, predictive, repeatable facts for it.
Otherwise I'll take your assumptions as (see your quote below....)

nothing more than hearsay.

-------------------
By the way the perception of beauty can be evidenced, tested, predicted and repeated. Perception of beauty is nothing metaphorical or "in the air". It's hard facts.