Imagination?

[Zzyzx]

.
Thousands of 'gods' are (and have been) fought over by humans. https://www.rationalresponders.com/a_bi ... ll_of_them

Is it possible or likely that at least some of the 'gods' are products of human imagination? Is it possible or likely that some of the stories told about 'gods' are imaginary?

If within the realm of possibility or likelihood, how can the imaginary (or 'true') be identified?

[Diagoras]

[Replying to Zzyzx in post #1]

That linked list of 'gods' includes such things described as giants, Anthropomorphized Facets of Nature, Personified Divine Forces, Immortal Monsters and 'First Men'.

An argument could be made that none of these were 'true' gods, simply by more narrowly defining what you believe a 'true god' is. However, that suffers from a form of the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy, so isn't a particularly strong argument.

What's clear from those descriptions though, is that they are sincere attempts to make sense of and describe the world as seen by the cultures that created them. The world of three to four thousand years ago would have been a scary and bewildering place to live: at the mercy of weather you didn't understand, disease you couldn't see, and wild animals you couldn't control.

Finding the best available explanations for these phenomena (before the idea of a 'scientific method') usually meant creating a story around why the seasons changed, or where lightning came from (for example). Passing on such knowledge was predominantly by oral means, which meant the more dramatic and easily remembered stories became more successful over time.

Human imagination has played a part in creating these stories. It would be churlish to suggest otherwise.

As for separating truth from fiction? Where a scientific explanation exists for a particular phenomenon that answers more questions than it raises (when compared to the 'god explanation'), then it's useful to flag that particular 'god' as likely imaginary. A good example would be lightning, with many thunder gods have existed throughout history. The scientific explanation satisfies all aspects of what we experience as lightning, but the idea that a god with a hammer, driving around in a chariot pulled by two massive goats is personally responsible for every lightning strike around the world is, well, primitive.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #7]

But DNA gave us the explanation of instinct, and clearly it was a real natural phenomena nothing to do with human imagination. Therefore the smart money for me is on an unthinking, unplanned, uncontrolled (other than by natural physical forces) reality, and gods have nothing to do with it.

Betting aside, we await both the return of Jesus, or a future time where humans have developed their understanding of the universe far more completely than they currently do.

Placing bets under such circumstance seems to me to be a rather unscientific approach to the question.

Reality throws us a curve ball very often. It produces something quite unexpected. For some time, science is at a loss to explain it; instinct, for example. I don't recall that many tried to pop a god in there as an explanation because some of our instincts are such as would give a god a bad name and blaming that on Satan (or indeed Man, as a way of getting God off the hook) just brings us the problem of evil. ascribing stuff to gods always does that.

I don't recall seeing any evidence that the actions of humans prove that there is a problem of evil in which to address re the notion of mindful creation.

I have encountered truckloads of opinion re that, but no evidence.

Death will come knocking eventually and gambling on the expectation of nothing but oblivion as the preferred outcome, appears to be wishful thinking, given the evidence I am looking at.

Quite so. The 'problem of Evil' is really only applicable to the claims of an intervening, hands - on personal; god with a Plan for us. That's why personal gods of religions are a quite different argument from the argument for a Cosmic Mind.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #12]

The 'problem of Evil' is really only applicable to the claims of an intervening, hands - on personal; god with a Plan for us. That's why personal gods of religions are a quite different argument from the argument for a Cosmic Mind.

With this in mind, it is a reasonable theory that an atheist could accept the idea of a Cosmic Mind without impinging on the directive "lacking belief in gods".

[TRANSPONDER]

For that matter, accepting the 'possibility' of Jesus-god does not really impinge on the (logical - not dogmatic) directive of 'lacking belief in gods'. So long as they have not gone so far as crediting the possibility as such a credibility that it becomes plausibility to the extent that one believes it, at which time one becomes a Theist. There's a long way to go from 'possibility' before the atheist gets there.

The Theist of course sees 'possibility' as a Gap for God, and in their reversed logic, it means that 'God' (name your own) has not been disproved 100% and is still undisproven and therefore (in their reverse logic) it is the default theory that atheists have to disprove.

But I'll concede that atheist might assign a percent more possibility to a Cosmic Mind than to any of the religious -particular gods.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #12]

The 'problem of Evil' is really only applicable to the claims of an intervening, hands - on personal; god with a Plan for us. That's why personal gods of religions are a quite different argument from the argument for a Cosmic Mind.

With this in mind, it is a reasonable theory that an atheist could accept the idea of a Cosmic Mind without impinging on the directive "lacking belief in gods".

Otherwise, whether the god-idea is a personal one or not, it cannot be seen as any different let alone 'quiet different' from any other idea of god, from the perspective of those who wish to maintain the position of lacking belief in gods.

Further to that, why would one presume that a Cosmic Mind could not be in a personal relationship with an individuate mind?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #12]

The 'problem of Evil' is really only applicable to the claims of an intervening, hands - on personal; god with a Plan for us. That's why personal gods of religions are a quite different argument from the argument for a Cosmic Mind.

With this in mind, it is a reasonable theory that an atheist could accept the idea of a Cosmic Mind without impinging on the directive "lacking belief in gods".

Otherwise, whether the god-idea is a personal one or not, it cannot be seen as any different let alone 'quiet different' from any other idea of god, from the perspective of those who wish to maintain the position of lacking belief in gods.

Further to that, why would one presume that a Cosmic Mind could not be in a personal relationship with an individuate mind?

Because then it would be a god. And the problem with gods is that there are 'guiet different' ones. So much so that the smart money is on them being creations in and of the human imagination and there would be no reason to suppose that these imagined gods are anything other than human imagination.

Now a Cosmic Mind would avoid that problem because it is a universal constant - the forces of the physical universe in functioning order and not subject to human imagination (sorry, solipsists ) The extra percent of possibilities for this Cosmic Mind detached from human imaginings is the unexplaineds, which are no more than that but are still open as gaps for a cosmic mind, if not for "God".

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #12]

The 'problem of Evil' is really only applicable to the claims of an intervening, hands - on personal; god with a Plan for us. That's why personal gods of religions are a quite different argument from the argument for a Cosmic Mind.

With this in mind, it is a reasonable theory that an atheist could accept the idea of a Cosmic Mind without impinging on the directive "lacking belief in gods".

Otherwise, whether the god-idea is a personal one or not, it cannot be seen as any different let alone 'quiet different' from any other idea of god, from the perspective of those who wish to maintain the position of lacking belief in gods.

Further to that, why would one presume that a Cosmic Mind could not be in a personal relationship with an individuate mind?

Because then it would be a god.

Search "God"
(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
2.
(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.

3 an image, animal, or other object worshipped as divine or symbolizing a god.

4: used as a conventional personification of fate.
"he dialled the number and, the gods relenting, got through at once"

a greatly admired or influential person.
"he has little time for the fashion victims for whom he is a god"

And the problem with gods is that there are 'guiet different' ones. So much so that the smart money is on them being creations in and of the human imagination and there would be no reason to suppose that these imagined gods are anything other than human imagination.

Search "Hindu God"
Contrary to popular understanding, Hindus recognise one God, Brahman, the eternal origin who is the cause and foundation of all existence. ... Hindus recognise three principal gods: Brahma, who creates the universe. Vishnu, who preserves the universe. Shiva, who destroys the universe.

Now a Cosmic Mind would avoid that problem because it is a universal constant - the forces of the physical universe in functioning order and not subject to human imagination (sorry, solipsists ) The extra percent of possibilities for this Cosmic Mind detached from human imaginings is the unexplaineds, which are no more than that but are still open as gaps for a cosmic mind, if not for "God".

Why do you think that a Cosmic Mind would have to ignore anything when everything is actually part of the universal constant, including human belief/disbelief in gods?
Even to the point where it has to ignore human beings and resist interacting with them, just to maintain some imagined "universal constant" which suppresses/works to suppress that relationship/potential relationship between the individual and the Cosmic mind(s).

[TRANSPONDER]

Well,aside that you reverse what I was getting at (avoids a problems humans had witht he concept, not avoiding something that Sortagod would have a problem with, you make a valid point. I can't really think of a good reason, not even total disinterest in humans as a fellow intelligence. Which is one reason I'd opt for physical processes being natural and not a mind at all.