One God or many gods

[CorrectiveLens]

I can't answer your question because you left out what is, to me, the most obvious choice. The question, IMO, should really be "One God, many gods, or none?"

Which is more complex and complete, the human body or refrigerator? Would you think that a frig would naturally evolve without a creator?
The choice is not that obvious.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

John 14: 6 I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
Only those that acknowledge their sinfulness, repent of their sins, believe and trust in Jesus' death for the forgiveness of sins, and get baptized with the Holy Spirit will have access to the Father. We become the temple of Christ, who is the temple of the Father. They are not within everybody.

True. This is limited by time and space, I think. No prophet can be above God. God can lead to salvation anytime anywhere.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Which is more complex and complete, the human body or refrigerator? Would you think that a frig would naturally evolve without a creator?
The choice is not that obvious.

Only because you don't know how to observe, with the insight provided by evolution.

There is no reason to suppose that a bolt and nut would appear without engineering, and fit so perfectly together. But if a simple cell could react to light (which is a physical thing), and in reacting produce slight modifications to itself in its offspring, it is not quite so unlikely that after many generations, lots of such cells may group together and and form a simple light receptor that could tell what direction the light was coming from.

Your problem is you don't have the intellectual power to differentiate between "engineering" (whereby the fridge) and simple response of living organisms to their environment. Frankly, it's not difficult. It just means putting aside your prejudices and THINKING.

 

[CorrectiveLens]

satan is very clever .. he causes us to think we "know it all".

G-d is not petty .. He is aware of what is in the deepest recesses of our minds.
He knows who is sincere and who is not.

Quoting one or two verses of a Scripture does not make a person a scholar.
Perhaps we could blame the Reformation, as it promoted division in authority, and self-proclaimed
sectarian dogma.

..but in reality, we only have ourselves to blame, for thinking that "we know it all".
Only G-d knows it all, and He will judge between us on the Day of Judgement.

All scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit and understanding comes from the Holy Spirit as well.
In Matthew 12: 24-30 the Pharisees blasphemed the Holy Spirit because they said that Jesus cast out demons by Beelzebub, the prince of the demons. Jesus then says in verses 31-32: Wherefore, I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men; but the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit shall not be forgiven men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this age, neither in the age to come.

 

[CorrectiveLens]

Only because you don't know how to observe, with the insight provided by evolution.

There is no reason to suppose that a bolt and nut would appear without engineering, and fit so perfectly together. But if a simple cell could react to light (which is a physical thing), and in reacting produce slight modifications to itself in its offspring, it is not quite so unlikely that after many generations, lots of such cells may group together and and form a simple light receptor that could tell what direction the light was coming from.

Your problem is you don't have the intellectual power to differentiate between "engineering" (whereby the fridge) and simple response of living organisms to their environment. Frankly, it's not difficult. It just means putting aside your prejudices and THINKING.

What gives the group of cells the motivation and knowledge to form simple light receptors so that they would know which way the light was coming from? I believe, just as you do, that living organisms adapt to their environment, but the human body, as well other animals, is composed of too many complicated systems to maintain life and functions. There is the nervous system, digestive system, respiratory system, the excretory system, the skeletal system, the muscular system, the endocrine system, the lymphatic system, the urinary system, and the reproductive system. It just seems to me that most intelligent people would believe in intelligent design as well as adaptation. We have yet not been able to create a living organism, not even a single cell. Also, there are no transitional species evolving and the variation of living creatures is a wonder to behold.
Psalms 19;1 The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
Romans 1; 20 For since the creation of the world, God's invisible qualities- his eternal power and divine nature- have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

What gives the group of cells the motivation and knowledge to form simple light receptors so that they would know which way the light was coming from?

I'm a bit confused. Cells have motivation? Doesn't that imply consciousness? Why can't they simply evolve due to natural selection?

 

[CorrectiveLens]

I'm a bit confused. Cells have motivation? Doesn't that imply consciousness? Why can't they simply evolve due to natural selection?

By motivation I mean such things as hunger, escape from danger, thirst, reproduction, etc. While we are at it, how do you explain consciousness, rationalization, creativity, empathy, love, hate, jealousy, free will, etc.?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

By motivation I mean such things as hunger, escape from danger, thirst, reproduction, etc.

Again, your words suggest consciousness of cells. Why do you think cells experience hunger, thirst, or a need to escape from danger. We do know that cells replicate, but there is nothing to suggest that there is any conscious motivation to do so. Rather, it is simply something they do.

While we are at it, how do you explain consciousness, rationalization, creativity, empathy, love, hate, jealousy, free will, etc.?

I don't make any claim to be able to explain consciousness. Science is only now just beginning to examine consciousness, so we are still in the dark ages. There are various ideas, but none proven.

There are a few things above that I can comment on.

1. Rationalization is the largely unconscious attempt to justify and action or idea. The person doesn't say to themselves, "Hey, I'm now going to just LIE to myself." In the case of immoral actions, humans are driven by cognitive dissonance to provide a justification so that they can continue to think of themselves as good people. In the case of ideas, it is due to something called Confirmation Bias, a defect of logic that seems to simply be part of our brain wiring.

2. Regarding creativity, scientists are still studying this. We know that it comes from the brain, and the most popular hypothesis is that it is rooted in the frontal lobes. But the jury is still out.

3. Regarding empathy, it is a biological instinct, and talent that most (though not all) humans are born with, and which is either developed or decreased by our experiences. Along with our innate sense of fairness, these two instincts are the foundation for human moral thought.

4. Love? This word is used for so many different things, that I'm not sure which one you are referring to. I'm going to take a shot, but if I understood you wrong, you have only to clarify and I'll be happy to reply once more.

I think of love not in terms of feelings, but of actions. For example, let's say a parent comes home for a 10 hour shift plus an hour long commute. They want nothing more than to grab something to eat, and have time alone watching their favorite TV show or playing the latest video game. But they have three kids. So instead of resting the way they want, they put in the effort to hug their kids, prepare dinner for them, help them with their homework, oversee that they all have their baths, and put them to bed. This is not what they want to do. In fact, inside their own mind, they grumble about it. They do not FEEL loving at that moment. But they ACT loving. THAT is REAL love.

In other words, I tend to think of love as acts of altruism. Behavioral biologists such as Robert Sapolsky teach us that altruism as evolved because of GROUP SELECTION. This is different than individual selection or sex selection. In Group Selection, traits which help the entire group survive and get pass on and become more frequent. It's interesting because the group selection of altruism is in direct conflict with the individual selection for selfishness. This is why you find some humans that are loving, and others that are selfish jerks.

5. Hate can be defined as intense dislike. I found the following summary of its reasons very helpful:
"Hate that's directed externally is typically caused by a personal threat or experience that triggers a strong sense of fear, mistrust, loss of power, or vulnerability. "

6. You could write an entire book on jealousy, which would be interesting given that it is the source of so many negative actions, from a bad mood to murder. In its milder form, it is simply envy: "Gee I sure wish I had won that award instead of Susie." In its extreme form, it becomes a pathological obsession and hatred that can even drive a person to violence. Psychology Today magazine has this to say: "Jealousy is a complex emotion that encompasses feelings ranging from suspicion to rage to fear to humiliation. It strikes people of all ages, genders, and sexual orientations, and is most typically aroused when a person perceives a threat to a valued relationship from a third party. The threat may be real or imagined." People do not choose to be jealous, and in many cases it seems impossible to reason with the jealous person. However, there are those people who have greater self insight, and you can talk to them, and work to ease their feelings.

7. Free will is another big topic. I have to say that I spent most of my life arguing for free will, as I believe it to be a necessary part of moral responsibility. I mean, if someone doesn't freely choose an action, like if they are experiencing hallucinations and delusions, can you really hold them responsible? My religion is one of right action (Judaism), and a lot of what we call free will is embedded into Jewish views.

However, things I have learned throughout my life have chipped away at my belief in free will. Probably the one factor that effected me the most was a series of classroom videos on Behavioral Biology by Dr. Robert Sapolsky from Stanford University (you can see the series for free on YouTube). I first watched them some 10 years ago. As with many new ideas, I listened, but had to chew on it for a LONG time. I think it was about a year ago that I had to admit to myself that I no longer believed in free will.

Factors determining behavior have quite a range: environment (including upbringing, social interactions, influences, and socioeconomic status), genetics, epigenetics, threat of punishment or promise of rewards, womb environment (including viruses, hormones, neurotransmitters, position in the womb, whether one has a twin of the same sex or opposite sex, etc.), learning, maturation, evolution, culture (including the culture of a person's ancestors), and more (basically I can't remember them all, LOL).

Today, although I'm still strong on law and order (offenders need to be removed from society so that they don't continue to inflict harm) I do not think of imprisonment as retributive justice, but simply necessary to protect us, and would like to see significantly better programs to rehabilitate.

 

[firedragon]

To people on RF who believe in many gods, why do you believe that and not in only one god?

To people on RF who believe in one god, why do you believe that and not in many gods?

I believe in one God. Because I believe God is the necessary being, and God has a will and he is the creator and sustainer. If there are many Gods will have different wills and is logically improper in order to sustain this universe with such precision. Gods will quarrel or go in different ways. One God is a more logical theory as a necessary being which is a most stringent philosophical argument.

 

[Bear Wild]

I believe in one God. Because I believe God is the necessary being, and God has a will and he is the creator and sustainer. If there are many Gods will have different wills and is logically improper in order to sustain this universe with such precision. Gods will quarrel or go in different ways. One God is a more logical theory as a necessary being which is a most stringent philosophical argument.

One god does not make any sense in our world and does not represent our world adequately. First of all our universe made the gods and goddesses not the other way around. Why would you only have a god without the goddess since that is unbalanced. The universe sustains itself even though the deities help shape it. There is no text to say there was only one god anyway. Even the bible mentions other gods and goddesses including Asherah whom some Israelites seemed to have also worshiped. A single god sets up the greatest danger of I am greater than which causes discord in our world.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

Only because you don't know how to observe, with the insight provided by evolution.

There is no reason to suppose that a bolt and nut would appear without engineering, and fit so perfectly together. But if a simple cell could react to light (which is a physical thing), and in reacting produce slight modifications to itself in its offspring, it is not quite so unlikely that after many generations, lots of such cells may group together and and form a simple light receptor that could tell what direction the light was coming from.

Your problem is you don't have the intellectual power to differentiate between "engineering" (whereby the fridge) and simple response of living organisms to their environment. Frankly, it's not difficult. It just means putting aside your prejudices and THINKING.

Every particle in the universe has consciousness and is evolving though at different pace like 1 mili volt and 1 kilo volt.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Every particle in the universe has consciousness and is evolving though at different pace like 1 mili volt and 1 kilo volt.

You may be correct. However, we have absolutely no evidence of it.

 

[CorrectiveLens]

You may be correct. However, we have absolutely no evidence of it.

An amoeba is a single cell organism that can change its shape. It moves slow compared to other smaller organism. It uses psuedopods to travel and to capture stationary food. If the prey moves too quick, it surrounds the prey and then the prey finds itself inside the amoeba to be digested. How does the amoeba know to do this?
To state that every particle has consciousness, to me is kind of silly. Inanimate objects do not have consciousness.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..Inanimate objects do not have consciousness.

It would seem so, but it is only an assumption.
Many people assume that plants do not have consciousness, but we know they are alive.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Which is more complex and complete, the human body or refrigerator? Would you think that a frig would naturally evolve without a creator?
The choice is not that obvious.

Not even worth answering.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Every particle in the universe has consciousness and is evolving though at different pace like 1 mili volt and 1 kilo volt.

If you say so. Personally, I have never observed consciousness without a central nervous system. I'd love somebody to demonstrate such a thing to me, but for some mysterious reason, nobody can manage it. (Hint: that's why some of us think it doesn't exist.)

 

[wellwisher]

To people on RF who believe in many gods, why do you believe that and not in only one god?

To people on RF who believe in one god, why do you believe that and not in many gods?

Many gods or polytheism came first and this evolved over time, into one God; two upgrades for consciousness.

Many gods were connected to specialization, like we do in science; science is like rational polytheism. In polytheism, we had a goddess for love and a god for war. These are two specialty skills, that do not exactly connect to each other. Specialization was also reflected early culture, in the sense of jobs; carpenter or farmer. Each got good at what they did; passed from father to son, and traded.

The main problem with this, was making the big decisions, that needed lot of experts, in many different areas, that do not exactly overlap. How do you get the goddess of love and the god of war to agree on a new bridge? Nothing big ever gets done. Experts in each field have earned their prestige; they are important, so they need to defend that prestige; importance, in the gray areas, they do not know; political gridlock.

Monotheism solved this egocentric politics problem; pride, by having an all knowing executive, at the top, to make the big decisions. God is assumed to be omniscience, or he knows all the sciences, and therefore can blend and integrate; plan, create and even engineer. The biggest jobs now can get done. This needed integral thinking in 3-D; out of the many, one. (e pluribus unum).

In science, the Physicists may not know what the biologist is doing; their new frontiers, and vice versa. These two experts may have the data needed to connect life at the quantum level. But in the land of specialty gods, this will never get done. This would need the generalist who dabbles in both of these fields and can figure out how to merge the two; e pluribus unum

If you look at Evolution versus Creation, Evolution is only about the life aspect of the universal changes. It does not address and connect the cosmological aspects. We have two science gods, that each have their own niche, separated by a gap. Creation is more in the style of cradle to grave; BB to earth and sun, to life, to human consciousness and beyond; connected omniscience by one God.

I prefer the omniscience approach; Generalist. It is way harder to do, even for less prestige, which is why people specialize. There is less prestige being half baked in everything; rational monotheism, compared to fully baked in one thing; rational polytheism and politics.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Personally, I have never observed consciousness without a central nervous system..

..and I have never observed one with..

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

..and I have never observed one with..

Not very self-aware, then, I take it?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Inanimate objects do not have consciousness.

Well that's one hypothesis. But there ARE those, including a some scientists, who believe that EVERYTHING has consciousness, even inanimate objects. It is referred to as Panpsychism. It is actually quite a common belief in animistic cultures, which speak of the spirit of the river, or the rock, or the mountain.