Natural Selection Seems Insufficient

[Jal]

Case in point - but it remains true that in the understanding of divinity that christianity arose from, god is a reality maker, not a reality taker.  2+2 or any other function is whatever god says it is, when god says so.  Subject to suspension, revocation, and revision at will.

Conceivably you could prove that mainstream theologians have held to that kind of idiocy.

But I'd like to think that most of the biblical authors knew better.  

I don't need the Bible to be entirely free from contradiction, but I do believe it's consistent on the major issues.

[Jal]

Hi popeyespappy:

I think I get it. Given history's hodgepodge and melting pot of religious traditions, to you it seems like a random intermixture incompatible with the existence of a single monotheistic Yahweh. I would say that if all believers had achieved prophethood, history would tend to reflect single, consistent, uncontaminated tradition for Yahweh. Because Yahweh speaks clearly to prophets, which helps to keep their doctrines pure. 

Doctrinal contamination is one of the reasons that Yahweh was at times vehemently opposed to the intermingling of the Hebrews with foreign peoples.

Your skepticism is common, widespread, understandable, and noted, but I think the two testaments paint a consistent picture of God. Which is comforting in itself. 

You insinuate that Yahweh is a storm god. That is quite correct, Scripture makes no bones about it. Scripture is perfectly clear that Yahweh is a storm God.  In a materialistic panpsychism, it pretty much goes with the territory. This is one of the reasons I am so opposed to the 2000 years of immaterialism constituting traditional theological idiocy.  Psalm 18 is one of my favorite examples of our storm God. Christans have yet to learn from Psalm 18 that what they call "revival" is, behind the scenes, a physical Storm unleashed by God to drive demons out of their lands and atmosphere. From Psalm 18:

"In my distress I called upon the LORD; I cried to my God for help.
From His temple He heard my voice, and my cry for His help reached His ears.
Then the earth shook and quaked, and the foundations of the mountains trembled;
they were shaken because He burned with anger. Smoke rose from His nostrils,
and consuming fire came from His mouth; glowing coals blazed forth.
He parted the heavens and came down with dark clouds beneath His feet.
He mounted a cherub and flew; He soared on the wings of the wind.
He made darkness His hiding place, and storm clouds a canopy around Him.
From the brightness of His presence His clouds advanced—hailstones and coals of fire.
The LORD thundered from heaven; the voice of the Most High resounded—
hailstones and coals of fire. He shot His arrows and scattered the foes;
He hurled lightning and routed them.

When Jesus later promised to return to earth riding "on the clouds of heaven", He means a divine Storm. The Book of Ezekiel is prolific with such phenomena. 

TL;DR: 
Yahweh's earliest historical footprint...shows a regional storm/warrior god who gradually absorbed El's titles and council over ~1000 years, then only became explicitly singular/universal during the Babylonian exile (Second Isaiah, 6th century BCE)...None of this trajectory looks anything like "first piece of matter to awaken unto sentience" The earliest layers have him marching from Seir with storm and earthquake, not slowly assembling galaxies from unawakened matter. Your panpsychist Yahweh isn't a hidden truth beneath the ancient sources. It's a modern concept retrofitted onto a deity whose actual documented history was going somewhere else entirely.

Scripture is silent on Yahweh's origin. Actually it's silent on a number of things. So what?

You say that tradition has him "marching from Seir with storm and earthquake,  not slowly assembling galaxies from unawakened matter."

We are told He CREATED the heavens and the earth. This can only imply a HUGE period of time (consistent with a slow assembling of galaxies). 

And since He evidently didn't use awakened matter, He must have used unawakened matter. My account is perfectly consistent with Scripture.

Admittedly it's an inference. I never denied that. For example, the word Trinity doesn't exist in Scripture. It's simply a well-reasoned deduction and interpretation. 

I am guessing that a discourse on panpsychism wasn't the most effective way for Yahweh to inspire readers. Hence the Bible doesn't explicitly mention it. 

Cheers.

[The Grand Nudger]

Case in point - but it remains true that in the understanding of divinity that christianity arose from, god is a reality maker, not a reality taker.  2+2 or any other function is whatever god says it is, when god says so.  Subject to suspension, revocation, and revision at will.

Conceivably you could prove that mainstream theologians have held to that kind of idiocy.

But I'd like to think that most of the biblical authors knew better.  

I don't need the Bible to be entirely free from contradiction, but I do believe it's consistent on the major issues.

You might like to think that, but you would be wrong.  Magic book's authors had an even more idiotic view of god than you, or the classical philosophers who cleaned it up. What you clearly need.....if you want to get away from constantly hamstringing your attempts at a rational explication, is to ditch magic book. It's a millstone around your neck. Every time you've said something phenomenally stupid thusfar it's in service of protecting magic book.

[The Grand Nudger]

-coming at it from the opposite angle, you could keep your need to protect magic book and ditch rational explication. IDK why anyone would want to do that, but it's an equally valid option. I often wonder whether people worship a god or a book...but it stands as an apparent fact that many people can believe exactly what the book says without needing to rationalize it. They'll just tell you the straight truth (which, fwiw, is also true for you...) that they don't know how any of it works - they don't have binding metaphysical opinions, they don't believe the sciences are a scam, and they don't have to.

[Jal]

Conceivably you could prove that mainstream theologians have held to that kind of idiocy.

But I'd like to think that most of the biblical authors knew better.  

I don't need the Bible to be entirely free from contradiction, but I do believe it's consistent on the major issues.

You might like to think that, but you would be wrong.  Magic book's authors had an even more idiotic view of god than you, or the classical philosophers who cleaned it up.  What you clearly need.....if you want to get away from constantly hamstringing your attempts at a rational explication, is to ditch magic book.  It's a millstone around your neck.  Every time you've said something phenomenally stupid thusfar it's in service of protecting magic book.

The Bible seems perfectly clear that Yahweh's feats are simply surgical operations on matter, instead of anything magical/ supernatural. 

Secondly, my rational explanations feel somewhat straightforward to me, they don't strike me as being desperate and forced. 

Phenomenally stupid? Scripture emphasizes direct revelation.  I don't think it would be much of a revelation if God were 100% visible to everyone, 100% of the time.  You can describe His hiddenness as phenomally stupid, if that's what floats your boat.

[The Grand Nudger]

There you go again, with the reflexive need to protect magic book. Phenomenally stupid as in telling us that 1+1+1=1 earlier in thread and then suggesting that 2+2=5 is idiocy in the same thread.

I don't have much to say about direct revelation. If I believed a god showed me it's ass or whatever, I'm pretty certain I'd believe in gods.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

'Visible'? Does that mean gases aren't matter? He's being silly again.

Boru

All matter is visible. 

Assuming the necessary optics are in place. Obviously Yahweh's eyes are better equipped than ours.

Stop nitpicking. Obviously the term visible is nuanced. For example, is Africa visible to me? Well not right wow, where I am sitting, but I wouldn't really describe it as an "invisible continent". 

Cheap shots and nitpicking - is that really all you guys got?

All matter is visible? You’re piling silly on top of silly. 

‘Visible’ means something is seen or can be seen. The distance between you and Africa is immaterial to the discussion and a very poor point. It isn’t possible to see, for example, a proton, yet protons are matter.

Cheap shots and nitpicking have worked for me my entire life, and I’m not about to change on your say-so.

You have been and remain an extraordinarily silly person.

Boru

[Angrboda]

[arundharma]

I was a follower of God but during my life certain events led me in hating God and then Atheists preached arguments to convince there is no God.  

Like what?

What do you mean by like what?  The typical arguments that Atheists have, the lazy man points

[Fake Messiah]

What do you mean by like what?  The typical arguments that Atheists have, the lazy man points

You mean like that argument that evolution is true?