Concept of God arising in multiple, different cultures

I don't think you understand.

Empiricism, due to the very nature it arrives at conclusions or draws from information, simply doesn't have the scope to lend authority to explicit causes. IOW, it relies on a sort of metonymic reasoning that never approaches the holistic, much like division by 2 of a number with value never arrives at zero.

IOW empiricism can never hope to invalidate the notion of god simply because whatever it claims to know is shrouded in mystery at either end of the macro/micro-cosm

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

the fallacy of this argument is the notion that issues of projection are somehow transcended through sensory observation. IOW its a false idea to simply equate empiricism with reality.

you could draw an even more diverse list of names different cultures have for "trees".

This does nothing to suggest that the notion of "trees" are some sort of false projection, etc

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Depends which notion of God we are talking about.

 

It's as sure as extrapolation, which is pretty sure, but not certain. As we go back in time, more and more stuff that we now understand is from natural causes was attributed to God or gods.

I reserve the word ignorance for intentional ignoring of information, which is hard to say unless one is actually there. I would use the phrase -didn't know-.

 

Yes, language is a flawed way to transfer thoughts because you didn't understand me. I don't intend to invalidate the concept of god, since I'm basically saying that we have do what works to function in life, and if God isn't apparent, describe things the way that is apparent for the sake of practicality.

I actually think I understand what you are saying, however sometimes it's true that I do have doubts about the interpretation of your words. So, thanks for your understanding about that.

I often observe people arguing because they misinterpret others' words and I don't want to do that. I want understanding both ways.

 

Given the usual definitions of "God" (ie. First Cause, Creator, Maintainer and Controller of the Universe, First Being) - how can there be anything that is not to be attributed to God??

 

It doesn't really.

Any entity that has the power to contextualize our perception (even if they are not a prime mover, omnimax god) is well out of reach of whatever we can muster empirically.

Kind of like having an ant on a twig and twisting it around repeatedly so he walks up and down the same 15cm piece of wood all day

 

It does, though. If people actually operate with the notion of a demigod when talking about "God," then they are clearly working out of an inferior notion of "God," and one that can be empirically put into question.

 

I guess start with the universal traits of God - omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience....and I might be missing one lol

can those traits exist? in the natural world, no, but I guess considering God would be supernatural then he gets let off the hook

 

even demigods could have the capacity to contextualize our empirical efforts (albeit not in such a complete or powerful manner as an omnimax god).

Even humans can frustrate the empirical efforts of lesser species.

 

Exactly. And on this count, atheists are actually correct.

Not rarely, theists present inferior notions of divinity under the guise of full divinity. People are right to be revolted by this.

 

Let me give an example of a modern collective projection; tripping out. The shooting at Sandy Hook has made many people lose touch with reality, thinking guns are animated and can shoot people, instead on focusing on the objective reality that any shooting has to do with the operator of a gun and his mental state.

Science can prove guns are not animated. But the trip projection sees walking guns. This projection causes many to collectively look at guns deeper. The discussion is not about illegal guns and crime, which is the vast majority of gun violation. The trip projection is geared against legal owners, who science can show are not the main source of the gun problem. The other way would create a reality check and break the spell.

If the ancients started to project and then trip out, over a tree, they would see also see an irrational connection outside of cause and effect. This might become the talk of the town. They may need to subdue and put that tree in jail so it cannot hurt anyone; stockpile wood. They would see the god of the tree, instead of the god of the guns. They were consciouis of the induction or projection, via the god, while modern people will go into denial, so they can remain unconscious of the projection.

When civilization began the projection trip was progressive; The fire would bring to mind other progressive features; cook, smelt. But in modern times, the trip seem to dumb down. This is connected to differetn parts of the brain being the source of the projector.

 

My approach to religions, like mythology, is that this is based on unconscious projection. Since the projection is higher than human; gods, the projector was from the main frame aspects of the brain, in contract to the ego being more like a terminal, who would observe. Modern projection is different since it seems to come from step down firmware in the middle.

 

The First Cause and Creator could be considered to have the deistic nature and not be important in our lives.

Considering the other two, Maintainer and Controller, everything being attributed to them makes sense.

 

And an entity cannot be the Maintainer and the Controller, unless said entity is also the First Cause.

 

When you speak here of projection, do you mean the psychological defense mechanism?

 

well I would argue that you are projecting and tripping out a bit yourself - the issue is far more complex than this caricature, since aside from mental state and criminal activity, gun related deaths/injuries also accrue (in a statistically apparent manner, btw) from legal owners with no mental/criminal history, particularly in markedly way if the market is saturated with them due to poor regulation (in contrast to the type of restrictions/regulations applied to other high risk OH&S contrivances in this contemporary world).

You are simply assuming that everyone else is tripping out with projection and that your view is simply the unbiased revelation of reality.

IOW whatever weaknesses you are ascribing to other people's views are also active in undermining your particular take on a scenario

 

what on earth (

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

) makes you say that?

 

Without empiricism, any such entities are merely speculative. Not every collection of concepts make sense. The usual definitions of God are non-sensical. Any entity that cannot be detected with empiricism is irrelevant, since it cannot interact with our world in any way that matters (any material way).