God (the modern, christian interpretation of) were to be a mortal race of advanced beings?
Looking at the bible itself, the OT god seems all vengeful, angry and serious, while the NT god seems to be about loving, kindness, forgiveness and, for lack of a better term, providing a 'way' out of the mess made by the OT god.
Looking at all the miracle pontificated about in the bible, you see a lot of 'natural' causes - floods, insects for examples - that one would think, would be beneath a supreme supernatural being. If a being can do anything (aka god, creator of all that is) why use water to kill? Why not simply 'pull a Thanos'? A simple finger snap. Or a thought. Or, use some sort of here-to-fore unknown source of power that can't be explained. Why not only 'wow' humanity but humble them beyond reason?
So, to me, it seems this can-do-anything-god that so many worshipped doesn't live up to the hype and is, relatively, simple in its actions.
Add to this all the other 'gods' from other cultures - many of which share the same or very, very similar stories, and I wonder how immortal and supernatural god actually is. Why can't these gods be a race of supreme, but mortal and flawed, beings? Surely humans could seem that way to ants. Or fish. Imagine the stories a fish would have to tell his friends once he's caught, removed from his environment, then returned!
So, if gods (including your god) were shown to be a mortal, flawed, supreme (by human standards) being, would it change you you see it? Would it change how you worship it?
Would you still believe if....
Moderator: Moderators
-
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3187
- Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:32 am
- Has thanked: 1510 times
- Been thanked: 824 times
-
- Sage
- Posts: 869
- Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2021 4:47 am
- Been thanked: 18 times
Re: Would you still believe if....
Post #41Certainly not to your ambiguous "human standards", especially when it is you who is apparently setting them, as they differ from "human" to "human".nobspeople wrote: ↑Wed Jan 12, 2022 1:26 pmWhatever standards to which you prescribe. No sense of asking you to adhere to other standards, now is there?2ndpillar2 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 12, 2022 1:23 pmWhat "human standards" are you describing? If your "human standards" are your "standards", then you are your own god. If they are the standards of Karl Marx, then he would be your god. Standards of men can change with the wind. And I really don't care if you answer my question. It is enough to ask it.nobspeople wrote: ↑Wed Jan 12, 2022 1:17 pm [Replying to 2ndpillar2 in post #37]
Is that a question TO me?As you are apparently flawed, according to your explanations, how are you going to change how your worship yourself? If you murder your neighbor, who is going to find you accountable, you or God?
I ask you directly, to answer directly, if gods (including your god) were shown to be a mortal, flawed, supreme (by human standards) being, would it change you you see it? Would it change how you worship it?
If you have already answered that without any morality speak, kindly repost it for clarity.
Only then, I will answer your above question directly, if it was directed towards me.
- Purple Knight
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3494
- Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
- Has thanked: 1130 times
- Been thanked: 732 times
Re: Would you still believe if....
Post #42It might be, we would just have no way to discover that. I don't agree that morality can't exist without the human mind. It might. We'd just have no way to know.William wrote: ↑Wed Jan 12, 2022 2:47 am [Replying to Purple Knight in post #25]A "set of rules inscribed on the fabric of the universe" implies that morality is an objective universal reality...If morality isn't simply the greater good, but a set of rules inscribed on the fabric of the universe, then what is wrong, is still wrong, even if it helps all and hurts none.
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 14142
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 911 times
- Been thanked: 1641 times
- Contact:
Re: Would you still believe if....
Post #43[Replying to nobspeople in post #36]
The act of worship can be applied to that which we focus upon most often, in relation to our world view.
Are you sure about that?Yes it CAN be, but it's not for me. For me, worship is apply your life, energy, time and being towards something you hold as 'higher' or 'better' than me. Nothing that I can think of fits that bill. Thus I don't worship anything.
Christian gods aside - the question "where did the environment get those morals?" has to do with "The Seed of Origins" - the unseen object which existed prior to exploding [germinating] as the "Big Bang"To me, moral means following the ideals I have personally. What may be moral to me might or might not be to you. Where did I get those morals?
From the environment.
Where did the environment get those morals?
Probably from a lot of places, but I don't see any 'god' as any one of those places. Fact is, the modern christian god is CREATED by humanity, not the other way around as far as I can see it.
-
- Sage
- Posts: 898
- Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2020 12:18 pm
- Has thanked: 41 times
- Been thanked: 225 times
Re: Would you still believe if....
Post #44[Replying to nobspeople in post #1]
If mortal, powerful beings* capable of doing what appeared miraculous were shown to exist, I would still believe in an actual God that is not them. No matter how powerful a being in this universe is, the fact that it is part of this universe means that it could not have created this universe. It could not create itself. If a being is less than eternal then that means it was not the First Cause. It was another part of the creation, and Christians worship the Creator.
*A supreme being, by definition, cannot be mortal. If it were mortal then even by human standards it would not be supreme.
If mortal, powerful beings* capable of doing what appeared miraculous were shown to exist, I would still believe in an actual God that is not them. No matter how powerful a being in this universe is, the fact that it is part of this universe means that it could not have created this universe. It could not create itself. If a being is less than eternal then that means it was not the First Cause. It was another part of the creation, and Christians worship the Creator.
*A supreme being, by definition, cannot be mortal. If it were mortal then even by human standards it would not be supreme.
Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.
-Charles Darwin
-Charles Darwin
-
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3187
- Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:32 am
- Has thanked: 1510 times
- Been thanked: 824 times
Re: Would you still believe if....
Post #45[Replying to William in post #43]
Absolutely. At least how I define worship, which might not be your definition.Are you sure about that?
Perhaps. Or perhaps it was always there?the question "where did the environment get those morals?" has to do with "The Seed of Origins" - the unseen object which existed prior to exploding [germinating] as the "Big Bang"
Have a great, potentially godless, day!
-
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3187
- Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:32 am
- Has thanked: 1510 times
- Been thanked: 824 times
Re: Would you still believe if....
Post #46Not sure I agree with your definition of supreme here. To me, supreme is simply much better and powerful than humanity. That said, it could mean it's immortal or not, as mortality doesn't need to apply to supreme for me.bjs1 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 12, 2022 3:31 pm [Replying to nobspeople in post #1]
If mortal, powerful beings* capable of doing what appeared miraculous were shown to exist, I would still believe in an actual God that is not them. No matter how powerful a being in this universe is, the fact that it is part of this universe means that it could not have created this universe. It could not create itself. If a being is less than eternal then that means it was not the First Cause. It was another part of the creation, and Christians worship the Creator.
*A supreme being, by definition, cannot be mortal. If it were mortal then even by human standards it would not be supreme.
I've noticed that things called 'miracles' oft times are things that seem 'wow crazy' to humanity.
Thanks for your participation here
Have a great, potentially godless, day!
-
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3187
- Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:32 am
- Has thanked: 1510 times
- Been thanked: 824 times
Re: Would you still believe if....
Post #47So to answer the question: NO2ndpillar2 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 12, 2022 1:59 pmCertainly not to your ambiguous "human standards", especially when it is you who is apparently setting them, as they differ from "human" to "human".nobspeople wrote: ↑Wed Jan 12, 2022 1:26 pmWhatever standards to which you prescribe. No sense of asking you to adhere to other standards, now is there?2ndpillar2 wrote: ↑Wed Jan 12, 2022 1:23 pmWhat "human standards" are you describing? If your "human standards" are your "standards", then you are your own god. If they are the standards of Karl Marx, then he would be your god. Standards of men can change with the wind. And I really don't care if you answer my question. It is enough to ask it.nobspeople wrote: ↑Wed Jan 12, 2022 1:17 pm [Replying to 2ndpillar2 in post #37]
Is that a question TO me?As you are apparently flawed, according to your explanations, how are you going to change how your worship yourself? If you murder your neighbor, who is going to find you accountable, you or God?
I ask you directly, to answer directly, if gods (including your god) were shown to be a mortal, flawed, supreme (by human standards) being, would it change you you see it? Would it change how you worship it?
If you have already answered that without any morality speak, kindly repost it for clarity.
Only then, I will answer your above question directly, if it was directed towards me.
Thanks!
Have a great, potentially godless, day!
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 14142
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 911 times
- Been thanked: 1641 times
- Contact:
Re: Would you still believe if....
Post #48[Replying to nobspeople in post #45]
the question "where did the environment get those morals?" has to do with "The Seed of Origins" - the unseen object which existed prior to exploding [germinating] as the "Big Bang"
What caused it to germinate after always being in a state of eternally just being a seed?Perhaps. Or perhaps it was always there?
-
- Prodigy
- Posts: 3187
- Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:32 am
- Has thanked: 1510 times
- Been thanked: 824 times
Re: Would you still believe if....
Post #49Who says it had to germinate at all? Seems a rather assuming take to make. A good assumption, knowing what humanity knows, but an assumption nonetheless.William wrote: ↑Thu Jan 13, 2022 11:11 am [Replying to nobspeople in post #45]
the question "where did the environment get those morals?" has to do with "The Seed of Origins" - the unseen object which existed prior to exploding [germinating] as the "Big Bang"What caused it to germinate after always being in a state of eternally just being a seed?Perhaps. Or perhaps it was always there?
Have a great, potentially godless, day!
- William
- Savant
- Posts: 14142
- Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
- Location: Te Waipounamu
- Has thanked: 911 times
- Been thanked: 1641 times
- Contact:
Re: Would you still believe if....
Post #50[Replying to nobspeople in post #49]
Therefore it can be reasonably assumed that since it did, it most likely had to.
My question is focused on the fact that it did germinate, rather than that it had to, although what we do know from seeds is that they have to germinate when the conditions allow this to occur.Who says it had to germinate at all?
Therefore it can be reasonably assumed that since it did, it most likely had to.