Impossible? God like civilizations?

[Moontanman]

I can honestly say that god of abraham was not what i was thinking when i first said godlike. All i think of when i think of god is that it's the creator of this universe; that's the concept in my head, and it's just as valid as any other concept or idea that humans have.

 

Further, would you not say it's more accurate and less imaginary to talk about that type of god that the god of abraham? There's thousands of gods strewn throughout history, all as valid as the next, why is inventing 1 more done to fit data and the others are not? Because there's a popular book or 2 on it?

 

Why is the god of the bible given this respect and others are not? If i wrote a book on an alien god would it then be a valid idea?

 

I'm not splitting hairs, I'm honestly curious why this is so as you're not the only 1 who has these sentiments, even in this thread.

 

I agree that all the "Gods" are equally bogus but the God of Abraham has more followers than most and more followers that are willing to kill you to make you believe not to mention more influence in government than any other "God" Our lives are basically influenced far more by this "God" than any other no matter what you believe or don't believe. It's impossible not to be influenced by "God" his fan club is everywhere, their fingers are in every pie, their noses in everyones life, and their scorn for anyone who does not agree is all over ever type of media in existence.

 

BTW, i am Native American, the Great Spirit is definitely supernatural.

[coldcreation]

I agree that all the "Gods" are equally bogus [...] "God" his fan club is everywhere [...] the Great Spirit is definitely supernatural.

 

Here is an interesting survey:

 

On the eve of the New Millennium, when many people are worried about the impact of new technologies, scientific developments such as human cloning and economic theory that seems to assert the deification of the market, concerns about faith and religion may be somehow shrugged off. According to the worldwide Gallup International Millennium Survey, most people still stand by the real thing: almost two-thirds of respondents say God is very important in their personal life.

 

The survey, conducted in 60 countries, which represent 1.25 billion citizens of the world, highlights that the idea of God is very important for the respondents personal life: positive belief scores on average 7.2 points in a scale from one to ten, the latter being the top mark. Sixty-three percent of those questioned fall within the seven to ten points slot, 16 percent are in a middle-of-the-road position (five to six) and 21 percent show they do not care too much about this (one to four). [...]

 

Personal God or life force?

Believers do not have a homogeneous image of their God. Forty-five percent of respondents say they think of God as a person as against 30 percent who think of him as a ''force'' or ''spirit.'' On the other hand, 14 percent has no clue about this, eight percent simply do not believe God exists and three percent do not answer.

 

 

How could so many people be misled?

 

 

CC

[JMJones0424]

How could so many people be misled?

 

Well, it's quite easy. It appears to me that for the vast majority of people, religion is as natural a part of culture as language. Social norms dictate belief in something, and usually dictate what that something is. The vast majority of people in this world are born, live, and die while never having viewed critically the social norms they were born into, usually because there are more pressing matters.

 

Added to this, there are socio-political mechanisms in place in a lot of societies that enforce the status-quo. One's religion is one of the defining characteristics of many societies, and extricating religion from that society is not as easy as asking people to rationally evaluate their beliefs.

 

Then there are the useful side-effects of religion, such as an explanation for the unknown (regardless of how factual the explanation may be), comfort for what at times appears a very cruel and random world, etc. etc.

 

And finally, especially where I live, those who are inclined to allow supernatural explanations for observed phenomenon, even when they know the scientific explanation for their observations still attribute the underlying "driving force" to a supernatural or divine being(s) rather than natural causes. As an example, the fact one's cancer went into remission proves that the church's prayers for him to be healed were answered. Chemotherapy and modern medicine is just the avenue that god used in order to carry out his plans.

 

Just because we, as a group of people here at hypography, are less inclined to use divine or supernatural explanations for unknown (or even known) phenomenon, does not mean in any way that the majority of humans on the earth are similarly inclined. I struggle with getting educated people outside of the science community here in America to see the fact that the existence of the universe does not necessarily require a creator. That concept is far more difficult to swallow in less educated areas of the world.

[geko]

Isn't the widespread belief in a creator and a god just a case of the fact that we're the descendants on the most adept patten seekers?

 

Likewise with the other mysticism; astrology, palmistry, dowsing etc., etc.

 

"There's correlation and synchronicity" you'll hear them say rather than coincidence. A pattern was found and then believed since it's common sense to infer one from the other, but if anything, science tells us that common sense is overrated and if anything the universe evolves by that which is uncommon sense.

 

Although yes, i'm also 1 of those people who think education lowers belief in the mystical as valid explanations.

[Moontanman]

Yes and no. God could certainly be supernatural. But before I proceed, please remember when I say supernatural I mean: It Can Not Exist--it is absurd--it can not be, rationally--it is a mathematical impossibility. So whether God could exist as a creator of heaven and earth depends on the culture, because God as a word, or diety, has meaning according to cultural understanding of that word, beyond a mere creator of heaven and earth.

 

Now let's translate words heaven and earth to the word universe, so as not to use metaphors. If you limit the attributes of some hypothetical entity called God to mere creator of the universe (and let that be the creation with intent to create, so that accidents of creation are precluded from discussion) , the existance of such creator is not irrational. It is within the realm of rational possibility because (1) consciousness and free will are natural, (2) creativity is natural--it exists in nature, (3) the universe as a medium is physical and thus natural. The only question that remains is the question of technology--how could it be created. Depending on our knowledge of universe/technology we can examine whether it is likely or not that some entity could create the universe with intent and to what extent that intent could carry the project based on the technology.

 

Lawcat i have to agree with you, the supernatural is totally absurd, a supernatural god is absurd, but to me any god or idea of god is absurd. A natural god is as absurd as a supernatural one. Being able to do some of the things we attribute to god does not make you god or even god like it just makes you hi tech and powerful.