Hello soulcalm17

[Paleophyte]

At its heart, religion is politics, and politics is power. The central tenet of power is that you don't retain it by giving it away. Once power is consolidated under a single god with a single priesthood it's unlikely to revert. That's why we see an evolution from very personal animism and shamanism through polytheism to henotheism, monolatrism, and finally monotheism. That's also why the evolution of religion frequently parallels the evolution of society. Power of all forms becomes centralized.

We do see examples of monotheism that fails. Akhenaten was simply too far ahead of his times for Egypt. That's simply a matter of bucking the existing power structure too much too fast. If he'd taken his time and built Atenism slowly it would likely have worked.

[Paleophyte]

Hard to reconcile Zeus with a Prime Mover given that he was widely recognized as the youngest of the offspring of Cronus and Rhea, themselves the children of Uranus and Gaia.

What we know with reasonable certainty is that virtually every Greek city, town, and hamlet had their own patron god, or goddess and sometimes more than one. We don't see them giving those up in favour of Zeus, which is what we'd really expect from any move toward monotheism.

Hard for modern people to do this, I suppose. Not so hard for them. Greek and Roman myths were malleable and frequently contradictory. For example, Eros is Aphrodite's son but also existed before she did. 

You remember Plato's Symposium. They change the myths all around to illustrate the philosophical points they want to make. 

Later Roman thinkers influenced by Neoplatonism could take a name and plug it in where useful, and not worry about strict adherence to writers like Hesiod.

And that religious plasticity is probably the best argument that could be made for polytheism. Monotheism begets orthodoxy and rigid intolerance. The wonderously varied and hellishly contradictory Greek mythos could never have existed under a monotheistic mindset. Instead you see tolerance and acceptance of foreign gods leading to a rich syncretic mess in Rome, because it's just plain dumb to annoy anybody's deity. Importantly, you don't see the opposite. There's never an evangelical drive to export the Olympian deities to foreign shores. Rome borrows them and rebrands them but that happens because the early Roman Republic lacked any major deities of their own, being more involved with local, domestic, and familial spirits.

[Belacqua]

And that religious plasticity is probably the best argument that could be made for polytheism. 

Well, OK. Here you're talking about what you consider to be best. I was talking about what happened in history. 

Monotheism begets orthodoxy and rigid intolerance. 

Sometimes. 

The wonderously varied and hellishly contradictory Greek mythos could never have existed under a monotheistic mindset. Instead you see tolerance and acceptance of foreign gods leading to a rich syncretic mess in Rome, because it's just plain dumb to annoy anybody's deity. 

I guess I should elaborate on what I was calling monotheism earlier. I talked about this a little in regard to Indian religion.

We'd need to differentiate between big-G God and small-g gods. The Hindu pantheon is full of small-g gods who get up to all kinds of things and act naughty sometimes. But they are essentially posterior to Brahman, which is what I think of as a monotheistic concept. This would be true also of a version of later Roman thinkers who take Jupiter as Prime Mover, but accept the continued existence of the small-g gods as well. 

The difference is that if a small-g god ceases to exist, the rest of the universe can go on. But if the Prime Mover ceases to exist, everything else disappears at the same instant. (This was always true of Prime Mover concepts up until 17th/18th century Deism.) 

With variations, the Prime Mover concept is called the One by Plotinus (who accepts many lesser spirits), Brahman by the Indians, and 不二 by the Chinese. You could have all kinds of small-g gods doing their thing while being essentially posterior to this highest thing. 

And if you want to call a system with a Prime Mover as well as small-g gods polytheism, it's OK with me, as long as we're clear that there is a highest, ontically different Ground of Being over all of them. 

There's never an evangelical drive to export the Olympian deities to foreign shores. 

Well, the Jews got kind of mad when the Romans insisted on putting a statue of one of their gods in the Temple.

[The Grand Nudger]

Depends. Truth is they were absolutely fine with it by and large. You're getting your info from the dissenters.

Anywho...Soulcam, is it because you've been misinformed that you believe what you do, or would you continue to believe what you do even if you could be corrected? Because..if it's the second thing, there's no point in anyone, you or I, wasting time with such non-arguments over things that aren't informative or important to you.

[Paleophyte]

I guess I should elaborate on what I was calling monotheism earlier. I talked about this a little in regard to Indian religion.

We'd need to differentiate between big-G God and small-g gods. The Hindu pantheon is full of small-g gods who get up to all kinds of things and act naughty sometimes. But they are essentially posterior to Brahman, which is what I think of as a monotheistic concept. This would be true also of a version of later Roman thinkers who take Jupiter as Prime Mover, but accept the continued existence of the small-g gods as well.

Strictly speaking that's henotheism, polytheism with a chieftan. The ancient Greeks and modern Hindus didn't and don't, respectively, think in terms of "small-g gods". They were all full-Caps-G Gods and nobody with any sense of self-preservation wandered around Athens telling them how much better Zeus was. Rule 1 of polytheism: Do not annoy the gods, any of them, no matter how small, unless you relish eternity as a cricket, or an echo, or something truly horrid.

With variations, the Prime Mover concept is called the One by Plotinus (who accepts many lesser spirits), Brahman by the Indians, and 不二 by the Chinese. You could have all kinds of small-g gods doing their thing while being essentially posterior to this highest thing.

Some pretty important variations there. The Abrahamic Prime Mover has personality, intention, and, traditionally, testicles. By contrast, Brahman simply is. Some traditions worship and pray to Brahman, after a sense, but endowing it with personality or human attributes would just be weird.

Well, the Jews got kind of mad when the Romans insisted on putting a statue of one of their gods in the Temple.

Largely because the Romans couldn't figure these weirdos that tried to make do with a single god. Nobody else made a fuss.

[Belacqua]

Strictly speaking that's henotheism, polytheism with a chieftan. 

No, I don't think so. If the Prime Mover is ontically entirely different from the small-g gods then he's not simply the boss.

The Abrahamic Prime Mover has personality, intention, and, traditionally, testicles. By contrast, Brahman simply is. Some traditions worship and pray to Brahman, after a sense, but endowing it with personality or human attributes would just be weird.

Depending on which Abrahamic tradition you're talking about. Discussions often get bogged down when someone is blending up, say, Thomist theology with some TV evangelist. There are many versions of the God of the Theologians, or the God of the Philosophers, and none of them has testicles.

[The Grand Nudger]

Because that's the silly part, and not the personal nature they all have as a matter of category. Saint Tom, for his part, was loonier than a shithouse rat.

Whether a theistic god is male or female is a reflection of the authority structure of the culture that proposes it - but all theistic gods share in their defining trait as human-alike in a meaningful way. Pure projection. Insomuch as any apologist needs to play that down they are offering a disingenuous defense of some other thing...likely, because even they realize that the actual item is indefensible.

[soulcalm17]

Hello soulcalm17,
It is a shame that Youtube fell into the hands of Google. They just randomly delete a comment, with no feedback, no explanation. I quote the Bible and they delete it. I talk about politics, science, chemistry, physics.
Once, a biologist said he wrote a lengthy comment about something (not COVID) and they delete it.


START OF BLOCK OF TEXT
soulcalm17 was saying that there is a piece of text in the Koran that is embarrassing for Mohammed.
soulcalm17 had written in our Youtube conversation:

Also, in there contains warning or cautions about prophet's mistake in some events. How come someone pointed it own mistakes if he made Quran by himself?

---

You were talking about this
Surah Abasa 80:1
which I found here
https://quran.com/abasa

I didn’t notice the words “noble tribes polytheist”.
That might be a popular interpretation among muslims. I don’t know. I was never a muslim and don’t know much about it.

The text says The blind person might be mindful. I don’t know what that means. From the context of the text, I judge that “being mindful” is a positive trait, a desirable trait.
Might be? This doesn’t mean much.
The text should state a fact. A fact would be:
This man is mindful.
This man is not mindful.

For example:
“This crayon might be blue” is not a fact.

The text then says Mohammed is talking to someone who is indifferent.
It looks like the jewish god says “I don’t blame you(Mohammed) but don’t waste your time on non believers, on people who are not likely to believe you. Go for the guys who are more willing to believe.”

I see no case of embarrassment there.

Salesman sense when a person is willing. They will tend to focus on that person more. It is important that a salesman focuses on sales, specially when he makes his living on commission.

So, the Koran is giving good advice. When you are out there trying to make a sale, trying to convert someone to islam, don’t spend too much time on someone who is skeptical.
Note: I am not saying that Mohamed is selling shoes, cars, guns. I am saying that for Mohammed, it is important to get more followers.


END OF BLOCK OF TEXT


START OF BLOCK OF TEXT

Actually, it came from the assumption that the fundamental stuff is matter that can produce living creatures.

 

You think that that early humans started with the assumption that stuff just turned into living creatures?
I don’t think so but you are entitled to your opinion.

I have never heard of a religion where the people believed that matter self organized without the need for aliens.

Why did early human fabricated or made the sophisticated thing about God that is powerful and omniscient, while they just face and understood their seen reality and can run their daily life (i.e by making simple tools for hunt, fire for cook, etc) without some divinity help?

 

Because there was a need to explain the natural world around them. I already explained this. I can explain it again if you want.

It is somewhat hard to understand your english. Yes, it took time for humans to collect knowledge. In other words, they did not know how to prepare silicon, purify it to 99.99999% and make siliconwafers, design ICs on DAY 1.
This is why there were no PCs on DAY 1.
The first step would be to know how to make copper and some of the other elements. Since it comes from the deep past, it is not recorded who the first human was who discovered that.
Logic leads us to think there was a DAY 1 when a human was able to prepare copper.

The same goes for languages. The same goes for cutting hair, making cloths, building houses, religion, preparing food and more.
Such things took time to develop. Different tribes discovered things at different moments. Some did not discover it at all.

So, if someone just life on earth for the first time, I would think that they just face the reality, no time to contemplate about what "behind" things, because they just think simple.

I guess you are saying that when a human is born, eventually they grow up, they don’t wonder about the past.
I disagree. Being curious is to be human. It is natural to wonder what came before him, who was his great-great grandparents and to also wonder who was the first human or have there been humans forever.

They face thunder that so frightening, so they just hiding and cover their ears. I they face raining, they will take shelter. These were what would they do because they had simple thinking.

I think that being curious is part of being human. Wondering things like “Where should I go?”, “Where can I find food?” is something that all mammals think about.
I have no idea if a cat wonders what thunder is but a human would wonder. They would wonder even before developing a language.

If you have no curiosity, then you are dead inside.

Someone still argue that their misery in life made them make that God’s thing. Okay, if there were really no God, they must be just sad, mad, or fear, without referring their emotions for the supranatural thing. If you believe that early human must be less educated in science than modern human now, they will just have negative emotions without crafting some story of supranatural thing that required more intelligence to did that.

You would have to have that discussion with them.
What I said is that humans are curious and at some point in time, a human asked the big questions,. Some of those big questions are “What am I?”, “Where do I come from?”, “What am I standing on?”, “Who made all this stuff?”, “What happens when I die? Do I just fade away?”
Naturally, a primitive human would not have the answer to those questions. Instead of looking at each other’s faces, and saying we don’t know, someone made up those answers. History does not record who that first human was.
It is natural for primitive human to extend himself. He would think “I am something, I have thought, so perhaps there is something that animates those animals, something that animates thunder, .....”

Well, what do you think? Do you think that early humans were less educated in the sciences than modern humans?
I did not understand the rest of that sentence.


END OF BLOCK OF TEXT

START OF BLOCK OF TEXT

The fact is, the discoveries of artifacts always found that human always did many things with God’s stuff. I quoted article from Britannica Encyclopedia :”As far as scholars have discovered, there has never existed any people, anywhere, at any time, who were not in some sense religious”
If the theory of "human made their own God" is true and inline with the theory of evolution, it must be in early time in human life, that they didn't refer all the phenomena they faced to the supranatural thing. And later at some time, when their brain developed, they made that supranatural thing and created their own religion. But the discoveries proved otherwise.

From what I understand, what you are saying is that at some point in time in the past, humans did not have a religion.
Yes, that is correct, that is the way it would be. It took time for humans to develop a language, to communicate with each other, to create tools, to develop a writing system and paintings.
There is always a first. There was a first moment, a first human decided to cut his hair.
There was a first moment, someone cut his nails.
There was a first moment when someone used animal skin or leaves to make cloths for himself.
There are a lot of “firsts”.

You say that discoveries prove otherwise. Show me the evidence.

Nah, I think when they say people, they mean sufficiently advanced culture. In order to have that kind of culture, you need communication. People need to verbalize their thoughts using sentences.

Look up language evolution. You’ll find a lot of interesting text. Here is one:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.100...018-9560-6

In fact, perspectives that embrace the idea of “language as action” deal with the issue of language origin referring to evolution of the communicative expressive modality. Acknowledgment that the action system has a crucial role in language comprehension and production has provided new views on the involvement of such a system in language evolution, bolstering the gesture-first theory of human communication, according to which human language first originated as a gestural-based communicative system (Arbib 2005; Arbib et al. 2008; Armstrong and Wilcox 2007; Corballis 2010a, b; Fogassi and Ferrari 2007).

END OF BLOCK OF TEXT


START OF BLOCK OF TEXT

Third topic is about my assessment on fundamental stuff. I need to clarify, in that post, I already assumed that those possibilities are “the final basic origin of universe” which atheist and theist stand at. And I can say, if you still investigate what is behind my fundamental stuff, it would be unfair. I’m also not asking you: who was made that fundamental matter/s? Because it’s logically inappropriate question.

Why would it be unfair?

And for your third possibility, I'm not going to ask what is behind it again. I just assess by observed nature: there were no example in nature that printer can produce living creatures.

I agree. No one has observed a printer that makes living creatures. Nobody has observed a magic box that poops out a universe.
Along with that, nobody has observed any gods, aliens, alien gods. Nobody has observed these guys make anything.
There is a good reason why we stick with Occam’s Razor in the sciences.


END OF BLOCK OF TEXT

I asked previously:
Ever read Genesis?

---

Yes, you can consider it was not embarrassing to Muhammad peace be upon him. And it wasn't indeed embarrassing actually to Muhammad peace be upon him.

---

I just give a thought exercise, if Muhammad was making Quran himself, he wouldn't put those kind of verses.

Someone who made verses to guide all his followers logically just would said about:
1. What concept of his idea
2. How to practice good living in life
3. Story about some events that proofing his idea is right
4. Convince people that he is really the messenger of God by showing his seemed (but actually not) unnatural power
5. Has an hidden interest of all his doing to benefited him: i.e collecting wealth from his followers.
6. Most importantly: to emphasize that all of his doing in life is all "right and no mistakes".
All of that possibilities logically couldn't accept the point of:
1. Showing his mistakes in verses
2. Warning against himself to not make mistake in verses.

That's why those verses can logically originated from agency outside of Muhammad that observed his behaviour.

About the fundamental stuff possibilities.

You said why not?

Actually I already told to you that I was just assess the likeliness of the qualities/properties of "The fundamental stuff"

The fundamental stuff means that it is fundamental stuff that is exist and is the basic of all  of universe. So it would be no other particle/matter that causing it. That's why I did not ask again to you, what causing that fundamental matter.

You ask me what creating my God, in which universe? So it is not valid question because out of our context.

I propose that the qualities would be:
Living, has idea, has purpose, intelligent. Which is called God actually.

You propose that the qualities would be:
No idea, no purpose, not intelligent. Which is matter actually.

I assumed that we can't still discover and observe both of them. My God is unseen. And your matter might be still hasn't been found (thus unseen as well) i.e might be some other basic particle that we haven't found yet.

And I gave empirical based reality of the assessment to you, which was:

1. No evidence of matter that are not living, has no idea, no purpose, and not intelligent, can produce living creatures
2. Any experiments on matter could not prove it as well

While on the contrary:

1. Living creatures (have same quality which is "living" as I proposed) can produce living creatures also by any means of proliferations
2. Human (which is living, has idea, has purpose, and intelligent) can give manipulation of the matter, i.e by experiment

So, my postulation (which is God) has meet the same qualities with living creatures in observed nature, and your postulation (matter) never proved can't produce any living creatures. While we all know that living creatures exist in universe.

About the possibilities that human made their religion.

Firstly, it's important to say, that my definition with human here is the modern human.

Basically, I of course believe that The God itself communicate and make the religion for human for the first time.

The reason is quite simple: for the first human got his consciousness, he didn't know anything if he did not got directions/information from the agency outside him. It was like babies that didn't know and do anything if their parents didn't teach them to behave, to speak, or to do something.

If you believe modern human came from less advanced modern human species, this is also the case. That first modern human must got their God and religion from the previous staged of his species, so it was not from their contemplation skill (Some scholars suggest that hominin in lower paleolithic era also had a religious awareness). What I propose is, there was no need to crafting some "transcendental thing" by first modern human, while they can easily grabbed "the God's stuff stories" from their less advanced ancestors.

About Genesis

I ever read it but it was long time ago, and not complete reading.

---

Administrator Notice
Part of new wall o' text under hide tags.

[arewethereyet]

Administrator Notice
  Read ALL the rules and follow them please.

1. When replying to a large post, members should not quote the entire post in their response, as this tends to make threads difficult to read. Instead, members should split the quote up into smaller quotes to which their response is aimed, provided the meaning of the quote is not changed by removing it from context. Alternatively, hide tags can be used inside quotes to make the quote smaller whilst preserving the actual quote content:
   
   Code:
   

   
   

   ---

   Section of quote a member wants to hide.

   ---

   Section of quote a member wants to respond to.

   
   
   
2. [size=undefined]
   
   Posts which violate this will be edited to either remove the large quote or hide it.[/size]
   

[The Grand Nudger]

Basically, I of course believe that The God itself communicate and make the religion for human for the first time.

The reason is quite simple: for the first human got his consciousness, he didn't know anything if he did not got directions/information from the agency outside him. It was like babies that didn't know and do anything if their parents didn't teach them to behave, to speak, or to do something.

Few things to consider.  Firstly, were not sure it makes sense to say things like "got his consciousness".  This imports superstitious ideas about the bestowal of some trait or attribute...and in full, all at once, no less... but there's nothing in evidence to back that up and everything in evidence argues against it.  Fantastically and informatively so in the case of hss..us, and the very claims you make.  Secondly, human beings are curious and creative.  We discover and learn and do things our parents never conceived of.  Like islam.......for example....

If you believe modern human came from less advanced modern human species, this is also the case. That first modern human must got their God and religion from the previous staged of his species, so it was not from their contemplation skill (Some scholars suggest that hominin in lower paleolithic era also had a religious awareness). What I propose is, there was no need to crafting some "transcendental thing" by first modern human, while they can easily grabbed "the God's stuff stories" from their less advanced ancestors.

We find a point of agreement here.  I also don't think that proto-religions or full blown religions or contemporary religions have to manufacture transcendental experience.  They do appear to manufacture gods, though, and that process is very much in evidence in the archeological record, the historic record, and continues to be with us in the present day.  It's not like you believe in all of those other gods..right? What are they if not manufactured? Why do we keep creating gods, and the wrong gods, from your pov? Don't you think it -might- be in service of some need, rightly or wrongly? Can you see that even if people do have their parents gods to refer to, they still go ahead and make their own?

Do you believe that your god is actually the god of your parents, or do you have your own opinions about it?