IMO this is consequential of the extent of human authority on the issue as limited by observational distance.

We can speak of our perception with authority.

That's it.

Things we speak of outside of perception are only attainable through some form of assumption (like "my perception is connected and represenatative of something objective").

It is human nature to anthropomorphize its perception. Supportive evidence abounds.

Nature is omnipresent. From that we can give it human characteristics as we require to attempt to understand its function. We can hypothesize it "possessing knowledge" (omniscient), "possessing power" (omnipotent) or "possessing benevolence" (omnibenevolent). All of which are part of humanity applied universally to nature.

It follows directly that a "being" (god) hypothesized or presumed with the properties described above is exactly the antropomorphization of nature. Thus, the thread title.

At least that's how it seems to me.

I think you are right, man wants a way to explain the unknown. god is the place holder until the candle of science can light the darkness of the unknown.

I really wonder just how many people really give a big rat's ass where and how the universe came about? I mean, really. How many people? Do you know?

Or is this one of those ...philosophical issues... where only the elite and educated want to know? All those "others" are too busy working and raising their families and trying to have some fun?

Baron Max

I really wonder just how many people really give a big rat's ass where and how the universe came about? I mean, really. How many people? Do you know?

The theists claim to have answered the question. There are lots of them. The majority of the planet.


Or is this one of those ...philosophical issues... where only the elite and educated want to know? All those "others" are too busy working and raising their families and trying to have some fun?

Baron Max

*sigh*

All I see here is you with an attitude that contributes nothing to the thread. Address something useful or kindly piss off.

The theists claim to have answered the question. There are lots of them. The majority of the planet.


I think it is useful to introduce something that William James said, which is that the religion of theologists is different from the religion of the common folk.

wes,

yes.

wes,

yes.

I'm sure it's just my "anti-theism" or "atheistic superiority complex" talking. :rolleyes:

No wes, It's not. You are simply correct. And I, as a fellow superior atheist can confirm your correctness.




:m:

Seriously, god as the human projection onto an overwhelmingly complicated and dangerous world makes perfect sense to me.

Well SL, I agree obviously.

What's sad is that it took me a year or better to get from "god is sheer anthropomorphization" to adding the last two words "of nature". *sigh*

I'll take what I can get.

:D

Interesting thread ...but it doesn't disprove the existence of god, does it? No. Just because humans can't understand something and project their own pitiful "meaning" to it, doesn't make it more or less true.

God might be "up there" laughing his/her/it's ass off at our silly attempts to explain him/her/it, huh? Perhaps we're only the pieces of his/her/it's boardgame or video game and he/she/it's having fun playing with us? ...LOL!

Baron Max

Interesting thread ...but it doesn't disprove the existence of god, does it? No.

It's funny that you'd make up a claim about it that was never made, agree with yourself and then chortle in your apparent perception of superiority. The thread doesn't claim to disprove anything. It simply shows what god really is.


Just because humans can't understand something and project their own pitiful "meaning" to it, doesn't make it more or less true.

But you made up what it is you say you're trying to understand (after having proclaimed basically "who cares" in your prior post).


God might be "up there" laughing his/her/it's ass off at our silly attempts to explain him/her/it, huh?

What makes you think the concept of "laughing" or "ass" is even remotely applicable to something you would claim not only created you, but the very space in which you exist? It's that you're doing exactly what I said.


Perhaps we're only the pieces of his/her/it's boardgame or video game and he/she/it's having fun playing with us? ...LOL!

And perhaps you're just not very insightful nor concerned with the topic, as your beliefs are "good enough for you", so anything that threatens them is written off as a joke. It's funny to me that you apply the idea of games to the purported creator of the universe, as if the concept is probably relevant. If god is timeless (as a creator/maintainer of nature must be), then any concept based it time wouldn't apply at all in that "being"'s context. - and pretty much every concept in humanity is fundamentally time-dependent, since we are finite beings.

Upon reflection Baron Max...

Please by all means, if god is what you need to be happy and contented - then ignore my intellectual droppings. Your ability to function within your context is more important than my bullshit. Take what I've said if you can handle it, otherwise I invite you to ignore it as simply someone else's attempt to understand something you don't need to understand in that way.

It follows directly that a "being" (god) hypothesized or presumed with the properties described above is exactly the antropomorphization of nature. Thus, the thread title.

At least that's how it seems to me.

Could we not equally assert that nature is the de-anthropomorphization of God.......sides of a coin.

That is if we're talking personality type gods. If we're not doesn't really work !

BTW, how are we defining nature here. Does "everything that exists; all matter and energy, especially in its essential form" cover it?

The tao is nature, as diagramed in "the taoist trap".

The thread doesn't claim to disprove anything. It simply shows what god really is.

But it does nothing of the sort!

In fact, as I see it, your initial theories are nothing more than has been spouted about since man learned to walk upright on the African plains. You've done nothing but repeat it all again .....for what purpose? Please explain that.

Baron Max

But it does nothing of the sort!

Apparently not for you...

But as I see it, the human conception of "god" is the anthopomorphization of nature. Period. While there may exist some "creator", it's likely as not that the concept of creation simply doesn't apply to what you think of as "god".


In fact, as I see it, your initial theories are nothing more than has been spouted about since man learned to walk upright on the African plains.

If you say so.


You've done nothing but repeat it all again .....for what purpose? Please explain that.


To interact.

Well, I'm "interacting", too!!

What I find strange is that you've simply repeated something that's been said since the beginning of human history, but you've made no attempt to justify it ....other than to say, "But as I see it, ....." I mean, what is anyone to say to that ...other than, "Gee, okay."?

But again, the idea/theory that you've presented means nothing ....either to the religious who believe in god, or to the atheists who don't.

I'm also sorry that my "interacting" has got you all upset. I'll try not to "interact" with you in the future (unless I feel like it, of course!).

Baron Max

Well, I'm "interacting", too!!

Thank you captain obvious. :)


What I find strange is that you've simply repeated something that's been said since the beginning of human history, but you've made no attempt to justify it ....other than to say, "But as I see it, ....." I mean, what is anyone to say to that ...other than, "Gee, okay."?

I gave my reasoning in the opening post. What I find strange is that you complain about it but don't really address anything. You've basically said "your thread is interesting, but stupid and typical". How about you pick a point and object.


But again, the idea/theory that you've presented means nothing ....either to the religious who believe in god, or to the atheists who don't.

LOL. Why do you think your opinion on that matter usurps that of others? You simply have no clue what it means to anyone else unless they've provided one here. A few people have chimed in directly in contradiction of your statement, so it's obviously false.


I'm also sorry that my "interacting" has got you all upset.

And I'm sorry that you somehow got the impression I was upset. Give me a clue, why do you think that? Have you not seen me upset? Seems to me like it's you who's a little hot under the collar because you don't like what I said. If it's so meaningless, why are you so annoyed. Your tone and assertion below are what give me the impression you're annoyed.

Oh you think I'm annoyed because I asked you to piss off? Pardon my phrasing, I was just asking you to be relevant or not participate.


I'll try not to "interact" with you in the future (unless I feel like it, of course!).

Why bother to mention it? Ah, you felt like it. As you wish.

The tao is nature, as diagramed in "the taoist trap".

Nature is All that is in existence including all essential energy
Tao is All that is in existence including all essential energy
God is All that is in existence including all essential energy
Reality is All that is in existence including all essential energy

Nature, Tao, God, reality are all synonomous.


......unless you want to define one of them to mean something different.


Our self can never be bigger than All that is in existence and can never be smaller than Part of existence.

The only changeable factor in all this is how far we can expand the self (or reduce it). We may become the tao but can never exceed it.

That is basically what your thread(s) are saying here.

Another thought that occurred to me whilst reading another of the smattering of anthropomorphization posts you have distributed.



- Humans are the anthropomorphization of god -

Another thought that occurred to me whilst reading another of the smattering of anthropomorphization posts you have distributed.



- Humans are the anthropomorphization of god -

That would be incorrect. God is a hypotheisis and not known to be human (or hypothesized as such), so the term anthropomorphization is innapplicable.

The only changeable factor in all this is how far we can expand the self (or reduce it). We may become the tao but can never exceed it.

That is basically what your thread(s) are saying here.

Two objections:

You are already part of the tao (from any perspective other than your own).

You are by the definition of perspective, separate from the tao (as illustrated in the diagram).

It boggles the mind.

It boggles the mind.

Throw me a frickin bone here. (please)

That would be incorrect. God is a hypotheisis and not known to be human (or hypothesized as such), so the term anthropomorphization is innapplicable.

In the confines in which your talking, I believe he can be said to be hypothesized as such;

Theism, mainly the abrahamic religions give personality to god. Human personality it can be said - anthropomorphization.

But these same abrahamic religions define man (humanity) as made in god's image. i.e. whatever the essential part of humanity is , it is the same as god. They say we are in some way the same as god. So if we reverse the logic here, as well as saying man is made in gods image, we must also be able to say god is in some way human.

Therefore as god came first i.e. god made man, not the otherway round. We can say that god has imparted on man some measure of his humanness, or god has given man human qualities. Or in other words
- humans are the anthropomorphization of god -


Thats if you work within the abrahamic definition of god of course....................... But as you move to more eastern definition you tend to lose the personalised god anyway, and so your original post loses some of its meaning aswell.

Choking out these words is about as painful as choking out a horse chestnut, but Baron Max has a point.

If I am understanding him correctly, what he seems to be saying is, "Yes, you are correct, but you aren't saying anything new."

Not only has it been said before, it seems almost the standard thought.

All the Abrahamic God is, is all the preceeding Gods rolled together to make a single entity.
What were the old world Gods, but the intention behind natural phenomena -the anthropomorphism of nature?
The God of thunder, the God of rain, the God of the volcano...

Self-centric human beings with a lack of understanding of science saw nature as something that was "out to get them" and needed appeasement.

If you don't offer a sacrifice to this particular God or that one, they will aim their displeasure at you and destroy your house, family, security, food supply, whatever you hold dear.

All the monotheistic God is, is a container for all the "lesser" Gods.
An entity to make all the old Gods more managable.

I may have completely misunderstood your point, but I don't see the revelation here.
Where's the original idea?

That's a good question raven, and I've been thinking about it.

I wouldn't have a clue if a thought of mine were "truly original" for reasons I'd hope you can understand without explanation. Who would?

In this case however, what I believe I've done is established a scientific definition of god in a very accurate and succint manner. Here is a relevant post from a the thread god as a scientific concept (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=47968):


I've been thinking about this a lot lately. As near as I can figure (and as cris noted), we'd have to modify the definition of god in order to make it a useful scientific concept. To be a useful notion IMO, it would follow from "the tao" in the sketch below:

http://jwesmorris.home.mchsi.com/tao.jpg

Given that we MUST try to relate to our environment in order to survive, we can note that the tao is anthropomorphized into "god".

So thusly, god is established as a scientific concept.

Perhaps that's just rehashing the same old crap... but to me it seems like the fruition of it. It's not just "hey god is made up", it's "here is exactly what god is in human terms." Further, IMO, if one accepts the basic relationship illustrated in the graphic, it seems to me the assertion "god is the anthropomorphization of nature (where nature and 'the tao' are basically equivalent)" is irrefutable.

Of course one may reject any assertion they'd like to reject, regardless of its validity.

Meh. What do you expect from some jackass (myself of course) on an internet forum?

Meh. What do you expect from some jackass (myself of course) on an internet forum?

Well, you should expect that when you make a post or a statement, that other jackasses such as myself will question the statements that you make or the theories that you propose.

Or are you simply blogging and want no one to respond to your posts? If so, perhaps you should make that perfectly clear in the original post.

Baron Max

Well, you should expect that when you make a post or a statement, that other jackasses such as myself will question the statements that you make or the theories that you propose.

What makes you think I don't expect criticism? I welcome it as long as it's relevant.


Or are you simply blogging and want no one to respond to your posts? If so, perhaps you should make that perfectly clear in the original post.

I don't get you. How do you construe that I don't want people to chime in? The point is that as raven put it "where is the original idea?", well... what do you expect from some jackass....

I do have a mild objection to your comments only in that they don't address the subject matter, but poo-poo the topic as tired. If you think it's tired, there's not a lot of point in reading the thread. Your objection is fine, but you haven't demonstrated a flaw in the thinking, nor the assumptions... so you're critic with no substance (on the topic) as of yet... but whatever. You're entitled to chime in with your thoughts as you see fit, and I'm entitled to the same.

God is a metaphor.

But these same abrahamic religions define man (humanity) as made in god's image. i.e. whatever the essential part of humanity is , it is the same as god. They say we are in some way the same as god. So if we reverse the logic here, as well as saying man is made in gods image, we must also be able to say god is in some way human.

Therefore as god came first i.e. god made man, not the otherway round. We can say that god has imparted on man some measure of his humanness, or god has given man human qualities. Or in other words
- humans are the anthropomorphization of god -


i agree with the initial statement made, 100%

in the case of the post i've quoted here, i see a perfect example of symbolism either being taken too literally, or presented in a poor medium (as far as it's representation to most theist)... to say we are made in god's image, and the same as god, could be true... if you accept "god" as a very broad term for generalising the process of evolution, through which the universe came into being.

truly, we have the same source (from which it all spawned), and share the same end (the slow decay of everything back into void.)... the process of which though, and essence of, exists within everything, as the same thing. god is the universe, the planet, the inhabitants.

all this nonsense about god being his own sentient being... alot of mixed up symbolism, it is... i really can't think of a simpler way to explain it... as far as the idea of god, picking up personality traits along the way, all i can say is that throughout time, it has always been the people who have an understanding of this knowledge, that use it to make all those who dont, submissive to it.

what boggles my mind, is that people cant accept this as a more reasonable answer than, some being taking the form of man (over every other creation in the universe), and dictating to us how we are to live out our existance on this planet.

in short, it is my personal belief, that the authorities (governmental, or religious), like to keep people thinking that the knowledge of begining is above humanity, and that people only achieve perfection after death, because if people realised the true potential, or limits of their knowledge, they'd be a little more apt, to stand up and do something, rather than live in fear of this being, after they are dead.

but to further understand that last statement, we'd have to get into other personal beliefs of mine... i'll just say in short, that it's my hypothesis, that as we are all connected by the source of creation, we also have access to the timeline in which it exist within... your perception, can access any part of this, through the memory stored within matter... i believe this to be the only way time travel is possible, and perhaps other things of that nature... but thats another topic entirely.

just remember, consciouse or not, you always have, and will exist in one form or another, wether it be in the form of dust, or human being.

i must state though, most these opinions were concieved through many long hours under the influence of psychedelics... on many ocasions :m: