Fake Gods

[SalixIncendium]

We are speaking about abstractions here. There is an important distinction that can and should be made between the abstraction itself and what the abstraction is meant to point or refer to. For example, let's assume for the sake of argument that I exist physically in the real world, consisting of mass/energy with spatio-temporal extension. There are many abstractions we can create to refer to me or hold the concept of me in one's mind. Examples might include the moniker @MikeF, my given name at birth, a photo of me, the visual memory of me if I have been seen in person, simply pointing at me, etc, etc. All of those abstractions exist, and exist in different forms, but none of them *are* me. My existence and their existence is separate and distinct. If I did not actually exist, then those abstractions that could still be created would point to nothing.

Due to the nature of abstractions and abstract language specifically, we can create abstractions that do not point to, or refer to phenomena or events in the real world. Sometimes we can create purely abstract concepts that are useful to us, like concepts of currency, or laws, and sometimes we can create gibberish in the way we associate language abstractions, as in this sentence: "Jangle elbow Denver Xslkfjei tincture happenstance drive angst Wilberforce temple swift oekjden."

We have the capacity to create abstractions that that point to nothing or are otherwise meaningless. When one makes a claim that 'gods' exist, it is the subject of the abstraction, what the abstraction is meant to point to or represent, who's existence is in question, not the abstraction itself. It is silly to conflate the subject with the abstraction as a means of claiming existence of the subject based on the existence of the abstraction.

I understand what you're saying, but whether or not I'm talking about a god or a thought, both would be the subject of the abstraction, no?

Mind you, I'm not talking about an abstraction taking form in the real world. I'm talking about something that simply exists...thoughts, numbers, etc.

 

[MikeF]

I understand what you're saying, but whether or not I'm talking about a god or a thought, both would be the subject of the abstraction, no?

Mind you, I'm not talking about an abstraction taking form in the real world. I'm talking about something that simply exists...thoughts, numbers, etc.

It depends upon how you define the abstraction, right? The abstract construct "Harry Potter" points to a fictional character, accepted as a fictional character, that features prominently in a book series named after that character.

How is the label 'god' defined and is everyone in agreement on the definition? How is the label being use? Is it an abstraction pointing to a fiction or to a phenomenon or event existing independently from anyone's thought, independent from abstraction?

 

[Sand Dancer]

I certainly don't want to insult any deities that may be out there by saying they are not legit. I'm an equal opportunity agnostic theist.

 

[Koldo]

How?

The absence of evidence speaks louder in Thor's case. Unless the creator god wanted to leave a message, hardly any evidence would be expected. Thor's case is more complicated, because, just for starters, where the heck is Jörmungandr?

 

[Bear Wild]

Good point. Better might have been something more like ...

" ... do you see no substantive difference between the plausibility of Thor and the plausibility of the God of Genesis 1?​

Yes, Thor is definitely more real to me. I have felt his presence. Others may experience the god of genesis more and thus that god is more plausible. Seems that one is plausible if one experiences them. The myths about both contain truth if one knows the context of the myths.

 

[Bear Wild]

The absence of evidence speaks louder in Thor's case. Unless the creator god wanted to leave a message, hardly any evidence would be expected. Thor's case is more complicated, because, just for starters, where the heck is Jörmungandr?

Jörmungandr is the Midgard or world serpent. He is the child of Loki. There is just as much "evidence" for Thor or the God of Genesis.

 

[Koldo]

Jörmungandr is the Midgard or world serpent. He is the child of Loki. There is just as much "evidence" for Thor or the God of Genesis.

Indeed, but it is to be expected that evidence surrounding Thor would be much easier found. Like, where is Jörmungandr? It is a serpent that circles our entire world. Even if it is deep within the oceans, how were we unable to spot it so far?

 

[Bear Wild]

Indeed, but it is to be expected that evidence surrounding Thor would be much easier found. Like, where is Jörmungandr? It is a serpent that circles our entire world. Even if it is deep within the oceans, how were we unable to spot it so far?

You asked about Jormungandr so I gave some information from the myth. I never said you would find Jomungandr in the oceans. It is a part of the myth with a complex meaning and to look for a physical serpent would make no sense. It has nothing to do with physical evidence of Thor.

 

[Koldo]

You asked about Jormungandr so I gave some information from the myth.

Ah ok. That much I knew, which is actually why I have mentioned it by name.

I never said you would find Jomungandr in the oceans. It is a part of the myth with a complex meaning and to look for a physical serpent would make no sense. It has nothing to do with physical evidence of Thor.

Here we are going to disagree. On what grounds do you claim it makes no sense to look for a physical serpent in the ocean?

 

[Vinayaka]

There are certainly those who believe that absolutely everything is false.

That can't be true.

 

[1213]

Why not?

Because they don't deserve that and it would not be reasonable.

 

[1213]

For clarification, why did you put the word 'gods' in quotes?

Because I would not call them God.

You also used the past tense of 'exist' in reference to ancient "gods", I presume it to mean that having once existed, they no longer do.

Yeah, for example the Olympus posse doesn't seem to be around anymore.

https://gogreeceyourway.gr/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/View-of-Mytikas-the-highest-mountain-of-Olympus-ridge-in-Greece.-View-from-Skala-summit..jpg

What was the nature of their existence? Was it as described by their adherents? How have they come to no longer exist? You did not specify a culture, so my assumption here would be that in your use of the term 'ancient' you are referring to all ancient cultures around the globe prior to some date. What is the cut-off date to qualify as ancient as you use it here?

They were like men.

I have said, You are gods, and all of you are sons of the Most High. But you shall die as men, and fall like one of the rulers.
Ps. 82:6-7

Ancient = over 1000 years ago. However, do you know gods that are younger than that?

 

[SalixIncendium]

Because they don't deserve that and it would not be reasonable.

For what reason do they not deserve it? Why would it not be reasonable?

 

[MikeF]

Because I would not call them God.

Yeah, for example the Olympus posse doesn't seem to be around anymore.

https://gogreeceyourway.gr/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/View-of-Mytikas-the-highest-mountain-of-Olympus-ridge-in-Greece.-View-from-Skala-summit..jpg

They were like men.

I have said, You are gods, and all of you are sons of the Most High. But you shall die as men, and fall like one of the rulers.
Ps. 82:6-7

Ancient = over 1000 years ago. However, do you know gods that are younger than that?

Ahh. I see. You're a henotheist then. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Bear Wild]

Here we are going to disagree. On what grounds do you claim it makes no sense to look for a physical serpent in the ocean?

You will not find it as a physical snake in the waters. This is of mythology and not science documentary. The world serpent in the myth is within the chaos of the world and oceans not one with physical scales and bones. This is metaphoric language not scientific description by that does not mean you do not experience the effect of Jormungandr.

 

[Koldo]

You will not find it as a physical snake in the waters. This is of mythology and not science documentary. The world serpent in the myth is within the chaos of the world and oceans not one with physical scales and bones. This is metaphoric language not scientific description by that does not mean you do not experience the effect of Jormungandr.

You didn't answer my question: On what grounds do you make this claim? What substantiates it?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Yeah, for example the Olympus posse doesn't seem to be around anymore.

https://gogreeceyourway.gr/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/View-of-Mytikas-the-highest-mountain-of-Olympus-ridge-in-Greece.-View-from-Skala-summit..jpg

What a dumb argument. There were multiple mountains named Olypmus in antiquity so I'm sure the Greeks didn't believe the Gods were literally camping there. The Greeks were a clever people with a sophisticated religion. Olypmus is a spiritual realm, same as Asgard with the Germanic Gods.

There's a town in Norway called Hell but there's no devils with pitchforks.

 

[Bear Wild]

You didn't answer my question: On what grounds do you make this claim? What substantiates it?

If you are asking about the meaning of the myth of Jormungandr my answer rests on what I have learned from the mythology and comparative mythology as well as embodying the myth in phenomenal experience. A world serpent is like Jormungandr is echoed in mythology of Egypt and Hindu. They have shared elements helping to understand Jormungandr. Then there is just experiencing Jormungandr itself (not a a talking snake but as an entity of our natural world).

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

If you are asking about the meaning of the myth of Jormungandr my answer rests on what I have learned from the mythology and comparative mythology as well as embodying the myth in phenomenal experience. A world serpent is like Jormungandr is echoed in mythology of Egypt and Hindu. They have shared elements helping to understand Jormungandr. Then there is just experiencing Jormungandr itself (not a a talking snake but as an entity of our natural world).

Jormungandr is the Germanic version of the chaos serpent, such as the Greek Typhon, who Zeus battled like Thor battled Jormungandr. It's just another metaphor for the Gods enforcing order over chaos. There's even a version in the Bible with Yahweh battling Leviathan. It's the same thing.

 

[Bear Wild]

Jormungandr is the Germanic version of the chaos serpent, such as the Greek Typhon, who Zeus battled like Thor battled Jormungandr. It's just another metaphor for the Gods enforcing order over chaos. There's even a version in the Bible with Yahweh battling Leviathan. It's the same thing.

I did not know the one about Zeus. That is interesting. But I agree and that is why Thor a god of order in the universe meets up with Jormungandr at Ragnarok. They are always in contention of chaos and order both of which are important to maintaining our world. We need both the wild and the controlled in our world.