How many Creators exist?

[Kilgore Trout]

You can cancel God also in your own image. so from where did everything come from? and from where did the organization in the world arise?

Not from the god created in your head.

 

[Nakosis]

Yes, people create ideas so you must search for the truth. If 100 people see a scene , everyone will describe it in a different pattern but this doesn't cancel the presence of an original truth that you must search for and doesn't mean the scene didn't happen.

I like the story from India about the elephant surrounded by a number of blind men. While each of them can perceive a different aspect of the elephant and describe what they've felt. They can't perceive the whole of the elephant.

So the one who felt the ear says an elephant is like a leaf, the one who felt a leg says an elephant is like a tree. The one who felt the trunk says an elephant is like a snake and the one who felt a tusk says a elephant is like a spear. So they argue about who is correct, each certain of their own perception.

If there is a God, certainly no man can understand anything beyond their own perception. Since no man is omniscient, anyone who claims to know the truth about such a being is lying.

 

[outhouse]

Every time I ask a question about God, the Creator, I get hundreds of different answers mostly in constant disagreement no matter whether the respondents are of the "same" faith or not.

That leads me to ask. If a person's God is a product of each person's own desires for a God with specific attributes, why bother citing religious texts that every contributor appears to interpret differently?

If I ask, "what is the capital of France?" every intelligent person would respond, "Paris". If I ask, "is God male or female", I get as many opinions as contributors.

Are you all telling me that each of you make up each or your Gods to your own liking and to your ability to imagine, or that there are many Gods, one for each believer?

key word is imagination.

 

[Godwilling]

I like the question.

My Creator is easy to describe....Almighty.
Top of the line in always...His will cannot be set aside.

Now you might ask.....His will....

In regards to creation...the ability to say...."let there be (...)...."
And that item becomes reality.

There may be lesser beings allowed to manipulate.
But there can be only one Creator.

I say this much as the next life leans to will...rather than works of the hand.

But you might have noticed that it appears that every believer has a different definition and explanation.

 

[Godwilling]

If there is a God, certainly no man can understand anything beyond their own perception. Since no man is omniscient, anyone who claims to know the truth about such a being is lying.

I think I understand your argument. Please confirm whether, or not, you are saying that you do not know if God exists andt that if God existed no one would be able to know it or describe it because we lack the necessary tools to perceive such a complex entity.

 

[Godwilling]

Only a few people believe that it takes belief in a god for that god to exist. What a pathetic kind of god that is...

I think everyone is entitled to their own beliefs about their own God/s and I don't think anyone thinks their God is pathetic. In fact, I think that every believer has a level of certainty about the reality of their God/s and the imaginary nature of other people's God/s.

I would argue that all believers are 99% non-believers because they only believe in one or few Gods and do not believe in the existence of the hundreds other Gods proposed by other believers. Considering that the vast majority of believers believe that their God/s is/are the correct ones and that all other Gods are not real, it would be fair to say that all non-believers and most believers share the thought that your God/s is/are not real.

 

[Godwilling]

"Five blind people and an elephant". That metaphor fits quite well.

So, are you saying that God is a metaphor?

 

[Nakosis]

I think I understand your argument. Please confirm whether, or not, you are saying that you do not know if God exists andt that if God existed no one would be able to know it or describe it because we lack the necessary tools to perceive such a complex entity.

I just think it is silly to trust any individual who claims they know how God wants you to behave. Certainly no reason to assume any person has the authority to dictate God's rules/laws.

If there is a God he ought to be able to let people know his wishes on an individual basis.

What sense does it make that God would expect you to trust someone you don't even know to speak for him. If there is a God one would hope he/she/it is a little smarter then that.

 

[Godwilling]

I just think it is silly to trust any individual who claims they know how God wants you to behave. Certainly no reason to assume any person has the authority to dictate God's rules/laws.

If there is a God he ought to be able to let people know his wishes on an individual basis.

What sense does it make that God would expect you to trust someone you don't even know to speak for him. If there is a God one would hope he/she/it is a little smarter then that.

Thank you for a well articulated and clear answer.

 

[ViKtoricus]

Every time I ask a question about God, the Creator, I get hundreds of different answers mostly in constant disagreement no matter whether the respondents are of the "same" faith or not.

That leads me to ask. If a person's God is a product of each person's own desires for a God with specific attributes, why bother citing religious texts that every contributor appears to interpret differently?

If I ask, "what is the capital of France?" every intelligent person would respond, "Paris". If I ask, "is God male or female", I get as many opinions as contributors.

Are you all telling me that each of you make up each or your Gods to your own liking and to your ability to imagine, or that there are many Gods, one for each believer?

There is only one God, and that is God himself.

That is what every Bible fundamentalist should be believing.

 

[ViKtoricus]

IMO it should be obvious that if you must consider the universe is created by a conscious effort [I do], then the evidence you would consider as proof, shows rather incontrovertibly [as far as it goes] that there are multiple creators.

The basic properties of the universe itself result in no single event or object which is unique and has no other like it. All objects and phenomena occur in multiples. Therefore, the number of creators must also be multiple, and possibly, legion.

I can agree with this.

But sticking to my Bible beliefs, I believe those other "creators" are merely God's angels.

 

[Godwilling]

The basic properties of the universe itself result in no single event or object which is unique and has no other like it. All objects and phenomena occur in multiples. Therefore, the number of creators must also be multiple, and possibly, legion.

I only know of one Milky Way Galaxy, one Solar System, one Earth,... Aside from that, there could be one creator creating various objects if that creator is omnipotent. Factories often create an array of products even with the same machinery, so I don't see your logic yet.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

I only know of one Milky Way Galaxy, one Solar System, one Earth,... Aside from that, there could be one creator creating various objects if that creator is omnipotent. Factories often create an array of products even with the same machinery, so I don't see your logic yet.

We have already seen many many other galaxies and a number of local solar systems. Earth is only a planet, of which there are many.

Omnipotence is not required; but even so, also, nothing says they aren't all omnipotent.

I understand why you don't see my logic. :sorry1:

 

[Breathe]

So, are you saying that God is a metaphor?

That isn't what I'm saying, no.

The story goes (quoted from Wiki):

A Jain version of the story says that six blind men were asked to determine what an elephant looked like by feeling different parts of the elephant's body. The blind man who feels a leg says the elephant is like a pillar; the one who feels the tail says the elephant is like a rope; the one who feels the trunk says the elephant is like a tree branch; the one who feels the ear says the elephant is like a hand fan; the one who feels the belly says the elephant is like a wall; and the one who feels the tusk says the elephant is like a solid pipe.

A king explains to them:
"All of you are right. The reason every one of you is telling it differently is because each one of you touched the different part of the elephant. So, actually the elephant has all the features you mentioned."
- Source: Blind men and an elephant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In other words, to me, this says that a monotheist/panentheistic God is very difficult for humans to understand as a species, and people are going to think things differently according to where they are and what they experience.

 

[Nichole_R]

This would be a fun question if it not had been so hopeless. If two creators exist, it means they are not the ultimate source of everything. There would be chaos. Imbalance. It's logically and intuitively right to have one Creator over all - one God.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

This would be a fun question if it not had been so hopeless. If two creators exist, it means they are not the ultimate source of everything. There would be chaos. Imbalance. It's logically and intuitively right to have one Creator over all - one God.

Not at all. You are placing unnecessary false requirements. There need not be a single originator; 'ultimate source' is semantics.

 

[Godwilling]

That isn't what I'm saying, no.

The story goes (quoted from Wiki):

A Jain version of the story says that six blind men were asked to determine what an elephant looked like by feeling different parts of the elephant's body. The blind man who feels a leg says the elephant is like a pillar; the one who feels the tail says the elephant is like a rope; the one who feels the trunk says the elephant is like a tree branch; the one who feels the ear says the elephant is like a hand fan; the one who feels the belly says the elephant is like a wall; and the one who feels the tusk says the elephant is like a solid pipe.

A king explains to them:
"All of you are right. The reason every one of you is telling it differently is because each one of you touched the different part of the elephant. So, actually the elephant has all the features you mentioned."
- Source: Blind men and an elephant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In other words, to me, this says that a monotheist/panentheistic God is very difficult for humans to understand as a species, and people are going to think things differently according to where they are and what they experience.

I understand what you are saying, and I like you to think about the full meaning of your statement.


I would have no use for metaphors, if I needed to learn auto mechanics , engineering, medicine, architecture, construction, geography, and any other factual subjects. I would want the facts in rich detail so that I may know the exact objects, techniques, and dynamics involved in the various subjects.


Metaphors are great in story telling because the metaphors help explain a story that could not make sense in the real world. Are you then using a tool of fiction storytelling to describe God?

You would be asserting that God is a figment of your imagination if you insist that a metaphor is your way of understanding the existence of God.

 

[Breathe]

You would be asserting that God is a figment of your imagination if you insist that a metaphor is your way of understanding the existence of God.

That's quite a leap you're making, there. I'm not quite sure I follow how you got to it. Would you be willing to expand upon how you came to this conclusion?

I was, however, not referring to a metaphor to understand the existence of God; just the Divine's nature and how we'll not fully understand it as we're, in comparison, limited. I'm quite certain I'm I don't believe in the existence of God as purely metaphor.

 

[Thief]

Not at all. You are placing unnecessary false requirements. There need not be a single originator; 'ultimate source' is semantics.

Someone had to be....'First'.

In the scheme of superlatives....Someone has to be....'Almighty'.

 

[Storm]

I would argue that all believers are 99% non-believers because they only believe in one or few Gods and do not believe in the existence of the hundreds other Gods proposed by other believers. Considering that the vast majority of believers believe that their God/s is/are the correct ones and that all other Gods are not real, it would be fair to say that all non-believers and most believers share the thought that your God/s is/are not real.

You'd be wrong, and you say why in your very next sentence. "The vast majority" is not all.