But what if your God is a flesh and blood human being?

Hello. (^_^)

(January 29, 2022 at 7:41 pm)Ahriman Wrote: But what if your God is a flesh and blood human being?

What? Like a Marvel movie character, as an example?

In which case the corollary is "What does 'God' need with a space-ship?"

Apologies for coming across as rude in earlier in the thread. It's absolutely no excuse, and I recognize that, but my mental health was a bit iffy at the time. Doing much better now.

Anyway, back on topic.

As an ignostic, as opposed to an agnostic or gnostic, I personally start by asking what 'God' or 'gods'—as terms rather than entities—are supposed to be referring to. Not everybody starts that way. Some folks, or even most folks, start with epistemology. I reckon. At least.

I'm actually really quite odd because start with metaphysics and phenomenology and end in epistemology. So my question with regard to that is: is there anything wrong with my approaching philosophy that way? Question is to anybody in the thread who wishes to answer.

(January 29, 2022 at 7:41 pm)Ahriman Wrote: But what if your God is a flesh and blood human being?

It depends on your definition of god.
If a human from the future traveled back in time and perhaps he placed some primitive cells on Earth so that evolution would be underway, sure, I suppose that is possible.
I wouldn't call that guy a god and I would not build churches and I would not baptize kids with water.
Reading about his scientific work as to how he made that primitive cell would be interesting.

If the guys who started life on Earth are some aliens from another planet in this universe, or maybe they are aliens from another universe..... same deal.
I wouldn't call those guys “gods”.


Saying “praise thee, oh glorious god”, bowing down and other such actions looks like a big waste of time.

I am more interested about that human or that alien and their scientific work rather than treating them as magicians.

Note: if we are going to do a scientific investigation as to how life started on Earth, I would go with naturalism. The different hypothesis for abiogenesis are interesting, specially the RNA world hypothesis.

(January 29, 2022 at 7:41 pm)Ahriman Wrote: But what if your God is a flesh and blood human being?

Then I'd have some very serious concerns about things that you consider a god(s).

When was the last time you took an MMPI?

---

(January 30, 2022 at 8:55 am)Lobster Lover Wrote: So my question with regard to that is: is there anything wrong with my approaching philosophy that way? Question is to anybody in the thread who wishes to answer.

That depends on what you expect philosophy to accomplish.

Quote:When was the last time you took an MMPI?

I don't think I've ever taken one.

If a person doesn't believe in gods, they aren't going to believe that people are gods either, now are they? Seems like a silly question in context, as it's not an issue for theism, ignosticism, or gnostic atheism. That people exist is hardly in question, nor is it the item of contention between the positions. We use a different term for people who worship other people. Yet another example of how the set of gods is intelligible and recognizable from other sets of things a person might worship.

(January 31, 2022 at 8:37 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: If a person doesn't believe in gods, they aren't going to believe that people are gods either, now are they?  Seems like a silly question in context, as it's not an issue for theism, ignosticism, or gnostic atheism.  That people exist is hardly in question, nor is it the item of contention between the positions.  We use a different term for people who worship other people.  Yet another example of how the set of gods is intelligible and recognizable from other sets of things a person might worship.

Well I don't believe in Odin, Vishnu, Krishna, Thor, Zeus, etc. any of that stuff, and I still think humans can be deified, or "put on a pedestal", so to speak. I would consider "human worship" far more sensible than the worship of mythological figures.

Maybe so, but you're indicating that you're an atheist at the same time. Would you consider your characterization of gods as mythological knowledge? Do you know that? If so, gnostic atheist.

Well I wouldn't be an "agnostic" anything, since I'm not really on the fence about much of anything, but as far as "mythological knowledge", no I don't think so.