A theological question I heard yesterday..

Post Reply New Topic

I was thinking of how time-space has gravity-wells as a way to explain how all mass attract itself, what would a 3d rendering of the electromagnetic force look like? Hills and valleys? This universe has a lot more than 3-space dimensions, all of them having to do with the way the laws of physics work.

But I think the question is not about wether God wishes that or not, I think it means that he actually can't do anything about it, which I agree the statment itself is a paradox.

Logic is an application of thought. Not to be confused with logic gates, which create rules, based on their own logical statements (that we created) but have no consciousness just simply following instructions. For something to understand logic it needs to have consciousness and draw its own conclusions or demonstrate. When people talk of laws of logic they are actually talking about laws of reality. Laws are also abstract. Without understanding we cannot believe in reality. Logic exists by us understanding. We may have refined our understanding as a species and therefore become more ‘logical’ arguably. Some animal still have limited application to draw its own conclusions or demonstrate, even it could be said that they are somewhat self aware.

The statement is a paradox unto itself, yes.

No idea which sect of Christianity holds that one but I don't think its universal - Gnostics definitely don't hold that view.

Man created God - God created chicken. Therefore man created chicken? Chickens were around before us, but originally came from eggs. But who laid the eggs? Question cannot be answered. So therefore the god-rock question is also as pointless as the chicken one.
Man is the ONLY one who can think, therefore is the only one who can create; so therefore MAN CREATED GOD! Get over it!

God created the heavens and the earth, man wants to think he created God, man is _____.

I believe there was someone who said "Man created God in his own image", I don't remember who was exactly, and I don't know actually, but some things seem to point to that possibility.

Man created the BELIEF that god created the heavens and the earth, which means he still created god. 'God' is not a physical entity, he/she/it is only a mentally projected image that man created to give him hope and to stop the thought that there was nothing to live for. Without the creation, man would still function, but might feel 'depressed', and therefore in 'hell'. With the thought process that there is a god, whether it's Jehovah, a pagan god or an Egyptian one, and the belief in that, that's where elation and joy comes into it, and that explains 'heaven'. Neither heaven or hell are physical places either, they are just states of mind that range from torment/depression to happiness/elation. It's just that with all these beliefs, a lot of folklore and legend was also created to justify the existence of this 'supreme' being. There are a lot of things that happened historically, the flood, the destruction of cities, crucifixions, but most if not all can be explained as natural events. We can say without man, there would be no god, but the inverse does not apply seeing as it was haumanity that created him in our image to begin with. if there was one true god that created everything, why then are there so many different faiths? And most of those faiths pre-date your own? What about the Australian aborigines whose 'Dreamtime' goes back about 40,000 years? They know nothing of your god in those rock carvings and paintings. Most of it is legend past down through the elders of each tribe. Same with all ancient beliefs. If you want to believe that you were created by a supreme being, that's fine; I however believe that man creates his own destiny, and also creates his own faith and beliefs.

I think it was Isaac Asimov, but either way for a man to claim ownership of God is like a parakeet telling its master to "Obey Me!". Lot of words, but no meaning.

What right does a man have to claim ownership of a parakeet, other than being bigger and smarter? We have the concept of ownership, but you can also look at the parakeet as a captive, not a possession. Give the parakeet a chance to fly away, and it probably will.
Iamnotaparakeet - although *your* views may say that god/concept of god has rule over man, it is ultimately the decision of the individual wether they are owned by god/concept of god or simply his captive.
Also - although The_Chosen_One's initial argument was rather weak, "God created the heavens and the earth, man wants to think he created God, man is _____" isn't the most profound of responses. Rather than simply attacking The_Chosen_One's beliefs, would you care to explain/support your own? For the purposes of debate, of course - so we can all see that it's not just an unsupported offensive.

My parakeet doesn't fly away when she's outside.

That doesn't really prove anything. That's only one parakeet, in a whole world - just the same as you are only one person. Your parakeet choosing not to fly away doesn't mean that all parakeets will choose to stay - and just because you choose to believe that god created man, does not mean that we all will, nor do we have to.
So, are you going to make another clever little response, or are you actually going to defend your beliefs like I suggested?

Your attacking an analogy, WTH?

If I was *attacking* it, I would've gone about it in a far less reasonable fashion. I think you'll find that I *extended* your analogy to support my point that not everyone shares your views. Also - I've suggested twice now that you explain *your* viewpoint instead of attacking other peoples... and both times, you've ignored my suggestion. So much for trying to encourage debate. I'd love to stick around and see how this unfolds, but as I've just said in the Away/Back thread, I have to leave WP for a while. So... I guess I'll just have to assume that you don't have a point to make in all of this, beyond discrediting the views of other people, seeing as that's all you've done so far.

...I wonder if you'll come up with a constructive reply this time, or just act all offended again?

I'm not offended, I'm just pointing out you're making the same logical mistake the Dawkin's does: showing how the analogy isn't perfect instead of the idea behind the analogy.