Is it Reasonable to Compare Gods with Bigfoot, Fairies, Unicorns, and Leprechauns?

[PureX]

I would say that your foundational premise here is false, namely, that acknowledging objective reality and clearly demarcating between which of our abstract thoughts correspond to objective reality and which do not will eliminate imagination entirely. This is simply not true.

"Objective reality" is an imagined state of being. How can you continue to refuse to recognize this? Unless you imagine that it exists, it does not exist. And yet you incoherently imagine that it exists separate from and above and beyond any imagined reality.

 

[ratiocinator]

"Objective reality" is an imagined state of being. How can you continue to refuse to recognize this? Unless you imagine that it exists, it does not exist.

Once you (or anybody else) stops imagining that gravity exists and then effortlessly floats unaided into the air, I'll take this sort of claim seriously. Until then, however, it's patently absurd.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I don't really think this is the case. I don't see people in general yearning for a connection with something greater and more powerful than ourselves. I see people yearning for peace, achievements, money, answers, love, purpose, companionship... And God has been historically posited as someone that can grant all of that.

It looks that way perhaps, to a materialist who views the pursuit of all human goals from a transactional mindset.

 

[Kenny]

Like I said, you don't have to answer but you accused a lot of people of not being interested in digging and I believe you also do not dig.

Are you saying there aren’t a lot of people that aren’t interested in digging? I think if you took an offense, you have to figure out why it offended you.

If you were to tell me, “You haven’t dug into Satanism” it would be true and I wouldn’t be offended in the least. If you were to say “Most people haven’t dug into Satanism”, it probably would be true and I also wouldn’t be offended.

Well, it's a judgment, many times over. They don't care, they don't want to dig deeper, they dislike themselves, they like darkness, they blame God, denying God is potentially blaming God.
Sweeping generalizations and judgments.

All in context of my signature. Aren’t there people who love darkness more than light? How many people are entrenched in the human-trafficking business… don’t they like darkness more than light? How about those who massacred 1200 innocent people in Israel, don’t they love darkness more than light?

To be fair, there are certainly there are those who seek the light and love the light.

Denying God isn't because someone blames God. that is an apologetic fiction that almost has never happened.

You will have to quote me where I said that. If I did, I need to know the context.

Do you deny Lord Krishna because of something horrible that happened? That's it, you definitely believe in Lord Krishna, because obviously he's real, but something horrible caused you to hate and blame him. Ahhh, that explains it.

??? Above please.

No. You find the story to be a myth. That's it. Same with Yahweh.

OK… you are free to process it that way.

It's not an opinion. It's the early renditions of Deuteronomy in Hebrew all agree that El was the supreme and Yahweh was in the pantheon.
Since you are digging this is covered in- Oxford University Press, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Isreal's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts, Mark Smith.

That passage reads originally:

When Elyon most high apportioned the nations
when he divided humankind,
he fixed the boundaries of the peoples
according to the number of the divine sons;
for Yahweh's portion was his people,
Jacob )Israel) his allotted share

Full spectrum of position has nothing to do with digging for knowledge. It has to do with evidence. We know the earth isn't flat, that isn't something that will improve our understanding in a forward direction.
What digging means in this context is finding out information and what is likely true. You don't have to reach the same conclusion but understanding what evidence exists.

Great digging! Yes… people come to different conclusions as they try to interpret the Word of God. (As per my signature). If one approaches it with a foundation of “Polytheistic Background” - that is what you will se. If we approach with the foundation of “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.” - we will come to a different conclusion

No it doesn't. Christian scholarship (as I demonstrated) and historical scholarship are all 100% in this direction.
Hellenism was first, it was then in Christianity. It doesn't cut both ways. You call for non-believers to dig for information and now you are coming up with vague generalizations and hand waving historical facts.
If I have missed a historian in the field who has scholarly work demonstrating the Greek connection is all nonsense I would be interested. But I have never seen such a thing.
David Latwa's new book Lesus Deus is about the Greek connection to Jesus
Richard Millers work is similar.
James Tabor and J.Z. Smith also work in this area. I mentioned Klause, an older work that is standard reading. The Christian

Encyclopaedia Biblica, which I posted a small bit from. All are in agreement.

I guess Justin Martyr has a defense in Dialogues With Trypho. He said the reason Jesus is so much like the Greek deities is because the devil made those to fool future christians. I guess the devil has the power to see the future. All those Greek religious people in Mystery religions thought they found salvation in their savior and would get their soul back to it's home in the afterlife. But it was just the devil. Bummer.

There has always been an effort to delegitimize the value of the Word of God. I understand that. The existence of the TaNaKh goes way before the Greek era. The New Testament is based on the non-Hellenistic TaNaKh. What happens is people superimpose the “Hellenistic approach” to try to devalue the message.

The Hellenistic influence did create variations like Gnosticism (and others) which was rejected in the NT. - But the message is not a “Hellenistic” message as the Church preached from the non-Hellenistic TaNaKh.

Acts 14:8–18; 17:18–34; 19:23–41 - demonstrate a rejection of Helenistic religions.

Based on what evidence? Disagree with what? That the Hebrew cosmology wasn't what was said? That Hellenism wasn't what is claimed?
That Paul wasn't claiming the physical body didn't rise but rather a transfiguration or spirit body?

You don't think that this is generally true in Christian theology? And all scholars and even
Encyclopaedia Biblica is wrong?

Material world/body is a prison of the soul

Humans are immortal souls, fallen into the darkness of the lower world

Death sets the soul free

No human history, just a cycle of birth, death, rebirth

Immortality is inherent for all humans

Salvation is escape to Heaven, the true home of the immortal soul

Humans are fallen and misplaced

Death is a stripping of the body so the soul can be free

Death is a liberating friend to be welcomed

I’m not sure which part of all of these you want to go over. This forum isn’t set for making a thesis.

This exact summary is the changes specifically from OT beliefs to when Hellenistic ideas were imported into the NT.
The 2nd list is a theology founded in Greek Hellenistic religions around 300 BC and also made it's way into the NT and modern Christian belief.

This is part of the work Dr Tabor does, which you said you disagreed with but now say you know the message changed, so that is confusing.
But it changed when Hellenism became popular and Greeks occupied Israel.

Ok… very general… pick one subject please

What are you talking about? What interpretation? This isn't a law? Yahweh said he creates evil and he creates darkness?
The Hebrew word means - misery, destruction, death, ignorance, sorrow, wickedness, he created it.

Again, interpretation. didn’t I give you the example of a speed limit?

We are discussing scripture no?

Yes… can you offer one?

 

[RestlessSoul]

I would agree that there are those who feel a deep need to connect with something greater and more powerful than themselves. The next step would be to ask and answer, if possible, why.

Whereas the first question others would ask, would be not why, but how? Why being something of a given, if one acknowledges the need in the first place.

 

[MikeF]

"Objective reality" is an imagined state of being. How can you continue to refuse to recognize this? Unless you imagine that it exists, it does not exist. And yet you incoherently imagine that it exists separate from and above and beyond any imagined reality.

Is it imagined or is it demonstrated? To say that it is merely imagined would be another false premise and does not correspond with what we know.

 

[Koldo]

It looks that way perhaps, to a materialist who views the pursuit of all human goals from a transactional mindset.

It is not necessarily transactional. Although it can be. Rather than that, it generally mirrors a parent-child relationship.

 

[Stevicus]

This would be the key point that I do not think many folks fully appreciate. It is a tremendous and unfounded assumption to entertain the idea that any entities described in the worlds religions are even possible. Couple that with what *is* known, including the traceable lineage of these fictional entities born out of the ignorance of our ancient ancestors and it seems quite clear that we actually do know all there is to know about "God" and gods. What we do not know is how the Cosmos began and especially nothing about what came before that. Given our current understanding of the Cosmos, we can infer a rapid expansion of the Cosmos from a very early and high density state, but that is it. There is absolutely no evidence to support involvement of sentient entities of any imagined sort. Such things can be neither deduced nor inferred, simply sprung forth from pure imagination, in other words, pure fiction.

I generally accept the idea that there are some questions I may never know the answer to. I don't feel especially pressured or any sense of urgency to vote "yea" or "nay" on a given proposition, especially when it's hypothetical, speculative, and has no real impact or relevance on my life.

 

[MikeF]

Whereas the first question others would ask, would be not why, but how? Why being something of a given, if one acknowledges the need in the first place.

Not sure I get the "how" question in this context. Let's try this hypothetical: "I feel a deep need to avoid confined spaces." Is the first question that comes to mind "How?" or "Why?"? Is the "Why?" a given in this scenario also?

 

[PureX]

Once you (or anybody else) stops imagining that gravity exists and then effortlessly floats unaided into the air, I'll take this sort of claim seriously. Until then, however, it's patently absurd.

Without the ability to imagine what would happen if there were no gravity, you would have no awareness of gravity as a thing, at all. It would still exist, but you would never know of it.

Because you can imagine this fantasy state of "objectivity" that exists beyond human awareness, it now exists for you, like gravity. But without the ability to imagine that it exists, it would no longer exist for you, even if it exists, regardless of you.

But I can see that you will never understand this, or why it matters. You are one of those people that has to believe yourself, absolutely. Much like the religious zealots have to believe in their God, absolutely. That dare not consider themselves to be living in an imaginary landscape of seen and unseen possibility.

 

[MikeF]

I generally accept the idea that there are some questions I may never know the answer to. I don't feel especially pressured or any sense of urgency to vote "yea" or "nay" on a given proposition, especially when it's hypothetical, speculative, and has no real impact or relevance on my life.

I would be equally sanguine if not for the reality that how others vote affect the way they behave and participate in society. The greater the number of "yea's", the greater the impact on society as a whole. That affects me as a member of society and consequently makes itself relevant regardless of my position on the matter.

 

[ratiocinator]

Without the ability to imagine what would happen if there were no gravity, you would have no awareness of gravity as a thing, at all. It would still exist, but you would never know of it.

Yes, it would still exist. That's what we mean by objective reality, so why do you keep on pretending it's the same as things we imagine that don't exist?

Because you can imagine this fantasy state of "objectivity" that exists beyond human awareness, it now exists for you, like gravity. But without the ability to imagine that it exists, it would no longer exist for you, even if it exists, regardless of you.

You're contradicting yourself. Objective reality is what exists whether we are aware of it, imagine it, believe in it, or not. It is also inescapable. You cannot break out of the restrictions of reality, like gravity, no matter what goes on in your mind.

The same is not true of things that are only imagined.

You are one of those people that has to believe yourself, absolutely.

More failed attempts at mind-reading.

 

[PureX]

Is it imagined or is it demonstrated? To say that it is merely imagined would be another false premise and does not correspond with what we know.

To be "demonstrated", alternative possibilities must be imagined, for comparison. Without those imagined alternative possibilities, we can 'learn' nothing of anything. Everything would remain just what it is. And inexplicable.

There is no existence without our imagining the alternative for comparison (even though the alternative does not logically 'exist'). There is no objective reality without our imagining it as an alternative to the subjective reality that we are experiencing. Imagination generates all of this. Everything you think you know, you known by imagining alternative possibilities and comparing and contrasting them, and then choosing the possibilities that you deem "true".

We all do. It's how we are what we are ... human.

 

[PureX]

Yes, it would still exist.

It MAY still exist, we would have no way of knowing, or even caring. But you aren't going to get this, are you.

Great minds have contemplated this conundrum for eons but you are a true believer of science. So for you, science has rendered philosophy, theology, religion, and any other alternative to science irrelevant. You are a "true believer" in science, now. Right?

That's what we mean by objective reality, so why do you keep on pretending it's the same as things we imagine that don't exist?


You're contradicting yourself. Objective reality is what exists whether we are aware of it, imagine it, believe in it, or not. It is also inescapable. You cannot break out of the restrictions of reality, like gravity, no matter what goes on in your mind.

The same is not true of things that are only imagined.


More failed attempts at mind-reading.

 

[Valjean]

No, you are not following the evidence, you are rejecting the evidence.

BECAUSE IT'S NOT VALID EVIDENCE!! .
You can't just declare whatever resonates with you "evidence." If it's not factually true, if it's subjective, if it's illogically concluded -- It's not evidence!

What are those logical reasons?

No evidence.

I was also given Baha'u'llah and the New Era over fifty years ago, and a lot of other books, but the conclusions I came to were different from yours since I am a different person, so what makes logical sense to me does not make logical sense to you.

There is not separate logic for different persons. A premise is either true or not; a conclusion is either valid or not.
If your maths instructor circled an error in an equation, did you complain that "the solution makes sense to me" ?
Logic/algebra is the same everywhere.

The difference between me and you is that I did not look at the claims of Baha'u'llah, not until I had been a Baha'i for decades. Nor did I care much about whether God existed or have a need to prove that. Rather I looked at the Baha'i Faith in its entirety - the spiritual and social teachings and the underpinning theology of progressive revelation, and that there is only one God and all religions are from that God.

Is this an argument from consequences?
Are we discussing social utility, or ontology?

I do not know what you mean by ontology as it applies to the Baha'is.

The actual reality claimed: God, God's nature, God's plans, God's doctrine and desires, God's commandments, God's relation to us.

The evidence is not subjective but how one interprets the evidence is subjective.

So what is the objective, empirical evidence for this God and this particular doctrine?

I never needed any evidence. The religion spoke for itself. I knew within two weeks that The Baha'i Faith was true, simply based upon logic and reason,

I challenge this. Show us your work.
This sounds like an ecstatic experience; an emotional commitment, more than reason or logic.

Didn't Baha'u'llah teach that if there were a conflict between science and religion, to go with the science? This sounds like he valued reason over emotion.

If Baha'i were "reasonable and logical", why is it not universally accepted, like relativity or germ theory?

and I have not wavered in my belief for 53 years. It is only now that I talk about evidence since so many atheists ask for it.

Our atheism is based on the flawed epistemic methodology of theism.

I never thought much about God for the first 40 years I was a Baha'i, it just made sense to me that God existed. Now that I get in discussions about evidence I see the evidence for God all around me. Even if there was never a Baha'i Faith, the Bible is ample evidence that there is a God, as many problems as it has. Jesus Christ is also evidence, just as good evidence as Baha'u'llah.

So what is this "evidence all around you": the vast universe? the wondrous intricacy of the natural world? These are all scientifically explainable as the natural, blind expression of the laws and constants of the universe. No magic or intention needed.

 

[Valjean]

Follow what?

"Sequitur" vs non sequitur.
Follow conclusively as rational and logical conclusions.

 

[ratiocinator]

It may still exist, we would have no way of knowing, or even caring.

Make up your mind!

Without the ability to imagine what would happen if there were no gravity, you would have no awareness of gravity as a thing, at all. It would still exist, but you would never know of it.

The important point, that you keep ignoring, is that we would still be unable to escape it's effects even if we didn't imagine it. As I pointed out before (#243), the distinction you keep on denying is something you (and everybody else) has to accept in day-to-day life.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Without imagination there is no conceiving of alternatives. And if there is not conceiving of alternatives there is no awareness of any other possibilities. Everything could only ever be what it is. It could not occur to us that it could be otherwise. Or that we could change anything for the better. There would be no science, not art, no philosophy, no religion. No questions to ponder. No evidence to consider. No conclusion to be drawn, and no choices to make.

Imagination is the cognitive engine that drives all human comprehension. Without it we would literally still be bands of naked primates living in the forests. No language, no tools, no order that wasn't written into our genetic code.

And yet some of you here seem to want to dismiss and disparage human imagination as being silly and useless and even dishonest, just because you don't like that it has generated the possibility of God. How incredibly childish and short-sighted.

And the misrepresentation continues.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The point here is that things that are imagined are not necessarily the same as things that are real. Imagination is real and important but you simply can't pretend that things imagined are the same as things that are objectively real.

You'ld think that this is so incredibly obvious that there shouldn't be a reason for stating it out loud, right?

 

[McBell]

And the misrepresentation continues.

When someone builds their worldview from strawmen, all you can honestly expect from them are strawmen.