Us

Exploring the details of Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Miles
Savant
Posts: 5179
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 1614 times

Us

Post #1

Post by Miles »

.

In Genesis 1:26 one reads

"26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."


What I get from this is that making man wasn't a solo task, but a cooperative effort of god and, at a minimum, someone/thing else. So, who is this us, and our, and what's the reason for your choice?

Secondary question: being the almighty god he is said to be, why do you think he needed help in making man?

.

User avatar
theophile
Guru
Posts: 1581
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 7:09 pm
Has thanked: 76 times
Been thanked: 126 times

Re: Us

Post #81

Post by theophile »

William wrote: Thu Sep 21, 2023 6:11 am [Replying to theophile in post #78]
Yes. But here is where I keep throwing Ockham’s razor back at you. How is your view not a far more massive and complex assumption than mine about the starting conditions with no greater explaining power? We should choose that which explains things with less. I.e., materialism, and no mind required at the beginning.
I gave one reason as to why. Can you critique that?

Here is another.

It is a logical contradiction to claim that a mindless thing created a mindful thing.

The hard problem of consciousness, is only a problem re materialist philosophy.

Adding mindfulness as an aspect of matter is not "a far more massive and complex assumption" than any other. It even simplifies your own argument by way of explaining without having to assume any kind of magic or mystery re mindfulness.
I didn't see a reason in your last post, or again after rechecking. So apologies if I'm being a bit dense.

There is also no magic or mystery in my view. Just pure materialism per your earlier summation. It's more your view that strikes me as mysterious / magical with your positing of a timeless being / Source Creator that has no justification so far as I can tell...

Per my view, did evolution (a mindless process) not give rise to mind / consciousness? it seems to me that it did, even if we haven't figured out how. It's not a 'problem' as you characterize it here; just something we (mindful beings) haven't cracked yet.

There's nothing that requires some prior consciousness so far as I can tell.

Online
User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14197
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 912 times
Been thanked: 1644 times
Contact:

Re: Us

Post #82

Post by William »

[Replying to theophile in post #81]
I didn't see a reason in your last post, or again after rechecking. So apologies if I'm being a bit dense.
The reasoning had to do with the idea of an eternal mindful creator.

The claim by Christian Supernaturalists is that the biblical idea of the Source Creator (God) is eternal.
Your philosophy is contrary to that, having it that God was created through a mindless act of nature.
There is also no magic or mystery in my view. Just pure materialism per your earlier summation.
Yes there is, as it is a logical contradiction to claim that a mindless thing created a mindful thing.

Since Materialist Philosophy cannot explain how this occurred or what instigated the organization of material into functional form, there is indeed magic/mystery associated with your philosophy.
It's more your view that strikes me as mysterious / magical with your positing of a timeless being / Source Creator that has no justification so far as I can tell...
For that you will require more detail about the Natural Philosophy I am speaking of which bridges the chasm between Materialist and Supernaturalist philosophies.

The Bridging Natural Philosophy.
Per my view, did evolution (a mindless process) not give rise to mind / consciousness? it seems to me that it did, even if we haven't figured out how. It's not a 'problem' as you characterize it here; just something we (mindful beings) haven't cracked yet.
While to a materialist, a mindless process appears to have given rise to human consciousness, this is inferred - in your own particular philosophy - as "God-Breathed", is it not?

If not, then why even have a creator involved in the existence of humankind, or the universe altogether? Why not just be a full Materialist and reject the idea of the existence of a creator/existing in a creation?
There's nothing that requires some prior consciousness so far as I can tell.
If not, then why bother with creator/creation at all?

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 21155
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 795 times
Been thanked: 1129 times
Contact:

Re: Us

Post #83

Post by JehovahsWitness »

William wrote: Thu Sep 21, 2023 5:59 am [Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #77]

I did no such thing. I quoted you and commented in context.

Are you here to debate? Do you have any critique of what I posted re the bible verses I commented on?
Neither did I. I would word my answer to you exactis as you have done. I quoted you and commented in context.


Have an excellent and blessed day,

JW
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681


"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" -
Romans 14:8

Online
User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14197
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 912 times
Been thanked: 1644 times
Contact:

Re: Us

Post #84

Post by William »

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #83]
Me: I quoted you and commented in context.

Are you here to debate? Do you have any critique of what I posted re the bible verses I commented on?
*You: I quoted you and commented in context.
Here is what I wrote - in context.
If the Source Creator created ALL things, then it also created itself.

Since the idea is that the Source Creator is eternal, then the Source Creator did not create itself.
(Emphasis on the part you left out of my statement)

This is what you quoted me as writing.
If the Source Creator created ALL things, then it also created itself...
Note how this changes the context and shows clearly that you did NOT quote me in context as you *claim to have done.


After which, you wrote re the biblical God didn't create itself, Post #66 - giving the impression that you were debating what I had written, even that I had not argued that at all.

That is why I have since asked you twice (and see you have ignored answering my question) "are you here to debate?"
If you are here to debate, take care to quote me in context, as I have with you.
If you don't wish to debate anything I write, perhaps think about not quoting me at all.

Thanks.

User avatar
theophile
Guru
Posts: 1581
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 7:09 pm
Has thanked: 76 times
Been thanked: 126 times

Re: Us

Post #85

Post by theophile »

William wrote: Thu Sep 21, 2023 3:17 pm
There is also no magic or mystery in my view. Just pure materialism per your earlier summation.
Yes there is, as it is a logical contradiction to claim that a mindless thing created a mindful thing.

Since Materialist Philosophy cannot explain how this occurred or what instigated the organization of material into functional form, there is indeed magic/mystery associated with your philosophy.
Lack of knowledge of how something happened does not mean it is a logical contradiction to say that it happened. A logical contradiction requires the making of two (or more) incompatible statements, and I don't think any statements I made are incompatible with each other logically.

There are also missing links in the evolution of human beings from apes -- do we naturally conclude then that each of these is magic/mystery as well? I'll accept there's a little mystery there, but associating that mystery with 'magic' is a bit much, and misleading... I don't think there's any serious doubt (in scientific circles at least) that some natural process 'instigated' these evolutionary steps, whether we understand the details or not.

Same with the emergence of consciousness, eyeballs, or anything else we see in nature. And the leap made with any of these still strikes me as far less than the leap required for an eternal source creator, whether purely Supernaturalist or your 'bridge' version.
William wrote: Thu Sep 21, 2023 3:17 pm
It's more your view that strikes me as mysterious / magical with your positing of a timeless being / Source Creator that has no justification so far as I can tell...
For that you will require more detail about the Natural Philosophy I am speaking of which bridges the chasm between Materialist and Supernaturalist philosophies.

The Bridging Natural Philosophy.
You've called my position both Materialist and Supernaturalist as well given its starting conditions and reliance on spirit, i.e., a separate, non-material, emergent substance. So wouldn't my philosophy also be a 'bridge'?

I don't sit cleanly in one camp or the other even though if pushed, I would indicate a materialist origin of things. This does not mean I see everything as some sort of mechanical process unfolding, or just matter and motion...
William wrote: Thu Sep 21, 2023 3:17 pm
Per my view, did evolution (a mindless process) not give rise to mind / consciousness? it seems to me that it did, even if we haven't figured out how. It's not a 'problem' as you characterize it here; just something we (mindful beings) haven't cracked yet.
While to a materialist, a mindless process appears to have given rise to human consciousness, this is inferred - in your own particular philosophy - as "God-Breathed", is it not?

If not, then why even have a creator involved in the existence of humankind, or the universe altogether? Why not just be a full Materialist and reject the idea of the existence of a creator/existing in a creation?
Because a creator (spirit) gives direction to things (i.e., a creative intent). Otherwise it would just be the unfolding of mechanical processes and accidental occurrences, and I don't think we should let that be our fate if we have the power to change it.

I just don't think this creative intent has been active across time, or that it needs to be. It's more a process taking control of itself than one that has always been under control.

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 21155
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 795 times
Been thanked: 1129 times
Contact:

Re: Us

Post #86

Post by JehovahsWitness »

William wrote: Fri Sep 22, 2023 12:01 am
You: I quoted you and commented in context.
Again , I am here for an honest and respectful debate not to bicker back and forth with people who cut and edit other peoples posts or for people to quote my words out of context. I really dont see the point in continuing this exchange as you seem disinterested in addressing any of the points I raised. I will not be replying further.

Come now... let us part as friends, no hard feelings. I wish you and yours a very wonderful and joyful evening,


JEHOVAHS WITNESS
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681


"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" -
Romans 14:8

Online
User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14197
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 912 times
Been thanked: 1644 times
Contact:

Re: Us

Post #87

Post by William »

[Replying to theophile in post #85]
There is also no magic or mystery in my view. Just pure materialism per your earlier summation.
Yes, there is, as it is a logical contradiction to claim that a mindless thing created a mindful thing.
Lack of knowledge of how something happened does not mean it is a logical contradiction to say that it happened.
The contradiction was pointed out to you. The “saying” itself is a logical contradiction, like claiming a round circle “happened.”
That is the “magical” part of the thinking.
You've called my position both Materialist and Supernaturalist as well given its starting conditions and reliance on spirit, i.e., a separate, non-material, emergent substance. So wouldn't my philosophy also be a 'bridge'?
Clearly it is an attempt at being a bridge. However, the hard problem of consciousness is not solved through having on the one hand, the eternal nature of matter but not of consciousness.
It is the same the other way around, where Supernaturalism has it that Mind is eternal, and matter is not.
I don't sit cleanly in one camp or the other even though if pushed, I would indicate a materialist origin of things. This does not mean I see everything as some sort of mechanical process unfolding, or just matter and motion...
You’re appearing to be siding with Materialism re the initial state is indication you are a Materialist at heart. This contrasts with you’re appearing to be dedicated to the idea of a Creator and having a foot in the Theist camp as well. You resolve the conflict of position by reinventing the creator as a temporal entity (or at least one which has a beginning) and thus your creator image cannot be accused of being “supernatural” but the inference remains that contrasted with the idea that matter itself is eternal (otherwise explain where it derives) this implies matter is eternal but not mind.
Where I stand, is on the Bridge over the chasm created by the unresolved differences. I have also referred to the “bridge” as a “wall” which both sides have built together to create what appear to be a permanent separation between the warring factions.
This conversation we are having is partly why I created a thread and wrote the summary explaining The Bridging Natural Philosophy.
While to a materialist, a mindless process appears to have given rise to human consciousness, this is inferred - in your own particular philosophy - as "God-Breathed", is it not?

If not, then why even have a creator involved in the existence of humankind, or the universe altogether? Why not just be a full Materialist and reject the idea of the existence of a creator/existing in a creation?
Because a creator (spirit) gives direction to things (i.e., a creative intent). Otherwise it would just be the unfolding of mechanical processes and accidental occurrences, and I don't think we should let that be our fate if we have the power to change it.

I just don't think this creative intent has been active across time, or that it needs to be. It's more a process taking control of itself than one that has always been under control.
This fits with concepts explained through the BNP – and is explained without resorting to either mind or matter being subservient, as both are aspects of The Same Thing and are regarded as eternal – naturally.

You will also need to explain why your philosophy accepts the creation of mind through the mindless process as not also being an “accidental occurrence” – if indeed that is how you view the event.

MissKate13
Sage
Posts: 538
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2022 6:55 am
Has thanked: 24 times
Been thanked: 60 times

Re: Us

Post #88

Post by MissKate13 »

When God says “ “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness;” He has to be speaking of the Word and the Spirit of God. We know that God created the universe and everything in it through the Word.

We know also that the Spirit of God was involved in creation. Psalm 33:6 says, “By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, And all the host of them by the breath of His mouth.” The breath is the Spirit (ruach - wind, breath, spirit)

All three were present at creation: God, the Word and the Spirit. It seems very obvious who the “us” is.
”For unless you believe that I am, you will die in your sins.” (John 8:24

Online
User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14197
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 912 times
Been thanked: 1644 times
Contact:

Re: Us

Post #89

Post by William »

[Replying to MissKate13 in post #88]
When God says “ “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness;” He has to be speaking of the Word and the Spirit of God. We know that God created the universe and everything in it through the Word.
That is one of the the old-world version of events yes. How do we apply it to modern knowledge of the unfolding universe, that we can identify the "word" in action in said universe?
We know also that the Spirit of God was involved in creation. Psalm 33:6 says, “By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, And all the host of them by the breath of His mouth.” The breath is the Spirit (ruach - wind, breath, spirit)
Again, how do apply this information to modern world knowledge in identifying the sound in action?
All three were present at creation: God, the Word and the Spirit. It seems very obvious who the “us” is.
Not really. The "God" the "Word" and the "Sound in action" ("Spirit") are definitive aspects of one entity - one being the mind, the other being the thoughts of said mind and the other being the actions of the thoughts of said mind.

There is no point in arguing that at the time of the creation of human beings, that this "mind" was "talking to itself" as we know much had already occurred - such as the formation of galaxies, stars, and planets, and there is no reason to believe that if the Source Creator can breathe something of itself into human forms, then this practice of breathing something of itself into objects to give them life, isn't also part of that process and also happened re galaxies, stars, and planets for reason and purpose which must be necessary in order for the creation to unfold as it has and is still doing.
Thus, we have Source-Mindfulness within the creation, in individual objects which form their own identity as a result and are thus able to be communicated with by Source Mind as co-creators.

So in a way, Source Mind is "talking with itself" when interacting with its conscious and vibrant creation, but also giving the gift of self-awareness to those individual objects created.

that is the "Us" Source Mind is interacting with in the Genesis story, when the word goes out to create Human forms. The breath which gave life and animation to said human forms, is essentially of Source Mind, even if it came through those other minds objectified into functional forms. Even if primarily that mind was the planet mind (Earth) from which we know the human form derived its material from ... and we also know that the material of the Earth derives from stars too. "Let Us Make Human forms and breathe "Us" into said forms" is essentially what happened. The breath itself is the same, regardless of what form it takes on.

Are humans so vain and proud to think that they are the only beings Source Creator breathed life into when literally the whole process of forming the universe as a myriad of objects involved this breath and indeed continues to involve this breath as the very thing which holds it all together?

The Bible does not contradict the broader understanding I have presented here. When it speaks of false gods, it is indeed speaking about human conceptions which remain unaligned to the truth, through ignorance (willful or otherwise) - whether these be expressed outwardly as idols, images from thoughts within a human personality.

But this does not mean that Source Creator did not and does not create gods for the purpose of assisting within the ongoing creation of this universe and allow these minds to come to their own understanding and acceptance re their connection with the purpose of Source Creator and willingness to play their role as intended.

That is also why the prompt "are you not all gods?" was spoken. To remind us of who we are underneath the veils of functional form and ignorance. Not to promote false vainglorious attitudes but to promote remembrance in the attitude of humility.

MissKate13
Sage
Posts: 538
Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2022 6:55 am
Has thanked: 24 times
Been thanked: 60 times

Re: Us

Post #90

Post by MissKate13 »

William wrote: Sat Sep 23, 2023 3:20 pm [Replying to MissKate13 in post #88]
When God says “ “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness;” He has to be speaking of the Word and the Spirit of God. We know that God created the universe and everything in it through the Word.
That is one of the the old-world version of events yes. How do we apply it to modern knowledge of the unfolding universe, that we can identify the "word" in action in said universe?
We know also that the Spirit of God was involved in creation. Psalm 33:6 says, “By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, And all the host of them by the breath of His mouth.” The breath is the Spirit (ruach - wind, breath, spirit)
Again, how do apply this information to modern world knowledge in identifying the sound in action?
All three were present at creation: God, the Word and the Spirit. It seems very obvious who the “us” is.
Not really. The "God" the "Word" and the "Sound in action" ("Spirit") are definitive aspects of one entity - one being the mind, the other being the thoughts of said mind and the other being the actions of the thoughts of said mind.

There is no point in arguing that at the time of the creation of human beings, that this "mind" was "talking to itself" as we know much had already occurred - such as the formation of galaxies, stars, and planets, and there is no reason to believe that if the Source Creator can breathe something of itself into human forms, then this practice of breathing something of itself into objects to give them life, isn't also part of that process and also happened re galaxies, stars, and planets for reason and purpose which must be necessary in order for the creation to unfold as it has and is still doing.
Thus, we have Source-Mindfulness within the creation, in individual objects which form their own identity as a result and are thus able to be communicated with by Source Mind as co-creators.

So in a way, Source Mind is "talking with itself" when interacting with its conscious and vibrant creation, but also giving the gift of self-awareness to those individual objects created.

that is the "Us" Source Mind is interacting with in the Genesis story, when the word goes out to create Human forms. The breath which gave life and animation to said human forms, is essentially of Source Mind, even if it came through those other minds objectified into functional forms. Even if primarily that mind was the planet mind (Earth) from which we know the human form derived its material from ... and we also know that the material of the Earth derives from stars too. "Let Us Make Human forms and breathe "Us" into said forms" is essentially what happened. The breath itself is the same, regardless of what form it takes on.

Are humans so vain and proud to think that they are the only beings Source Creator breathed life into when literally the whole process of forming the universe as a myriad of objects involved this breath and indeed continues to involve this breath as the very thing which holds it all together?

The Bible does not contradict the broader understanding I have presented here. When it speaks of false gods, it is indeed speaking about human conceptions which remain unaligned to the truth, through ignorance (willful or otherwise) - whether these be expressed outwardly as idols, images from thoughts within a human personality.

But this does not mean that Source Creator did not and does not create gods for the purpose of assisting within the ongoing creation of this universe and allow these minds to come to their own understanding and acceptance re their connection with the purpose of Source Creator and willingness to play their role as intended.

That is also why the prompt "are you not all gods?" was spoken. To remind us of who we are underneath the veils of functional form and ignorance. Not to promote false vainglorious attitudes but to promote remembrance in the attitude of humility.
The thread is about who the “us” is in Genesis 1:26, and not about how we apply it to modern world knowledge. I answered you according to what the Scriptures teach, and the Scriptures do not change.

John 1:1-2. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was in the beginning with God. 3All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.

Genesis 1:2 The earth was without form, and void; and darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters.

There you have it. God, the Word and the Spirit of God were present at creation.

When God said, “ “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness;…” (Genesis 1:26) Moses, the author of Genesis, is revealing that the “Us” is God, the Word and the Spirit of God.

The three are one entity.

I don’t know where you come up with the term “source creator,” but it is not Biblical. If you’re going to discuss Biblical topics, you need to use Biblical language.

Your entire post is without any Biblical references. You’re relying on human wisdom rather than Scripture.
”For unless you believe that I am, you will die in your sins.” (John 8:24

Post Reply