But a garden slug doesn’t have consciousness, or hasn’t demonstrated ability of self-awareness. Only the human-animal has ability as far as we know. We also have the inclination to question the nature of the universe itself, explain it’s function, workings and origin.
You seem to be implying that Thor does not exist. I’m gonna need you to take that back.
Not at all.
You repeatedly stated that the Jewish people believed that humanity could realize an image or understanding of God and pointed to the Shema as a scriptural support for your claim.
I have noted two things:
- that the Shema does not support your contention that Judaism finds God comprehensible and, therefore, does not support your claim that scripture indicates that God is comprehensible;
- that there was a book in the bible that was explicit in pointing out that humans cannot comprehend God: Job.
Now, it did not occur to me when I posted that that you would have been unaware that a primary theme in Job–as understood by a majority of commentators and theologians–was that humans cannot know God. Once it became clear that you held some different view, it became irrelevant to this discssion. Regardless whether my views or yours are a more realistic view of Job, if you disagree with the view I put forth, then my citation becomes irrelevant to this discussion. Arguing about it simply detracts from the rest of the thread because it becomes a sidebar.
And my point regarding the Shema remains: it does not address the image of God or display an understanding of the nature of God and you have provided no further evidence for a scriptural claim that Judaism considered God to have a knowable image or to be understood by humanity.
I can tolerate the idea of a universe-creator - I just see absolutely no evidence that any human religion has described said creator in any meaningful way, let alone accurately delved into its motives (if any) or proven it has any past or ongoing interest in human affairs.
Anyone who says they have an insight into said creator, including direct quotes therefrom, is going to need proof, else they’re just as useful as someone who is a liar or deluded.
Tom, it sure does seem to me that you’re being disingenuous.
You posted Job. You did. And now you will neither back that up or cite it.
And you offer no defense of your point, except that some unnamed scholars (apparently a majority of commentators and theologians :dubious::smack:) have your back.
When you’re serious, let me know.
I agree—almost. The one small part I’d take issue with is their having insight into said creator. They can have all the insight they want. But if they want me to act a certain way or not act a certain way based on that insight, then they’ll have to first convince me of this insight os valid. And for that I’ll need some convincing evidence, if not proof.
Correct, which is why I took considerable pains to point out that this is NOT the theistic argument. Theistic philosophers do NOT argue that everything has a cause. Rather, the argument is that everything which comes into being has a cause, as evidenced by human experience. The ultimate cause must therefore be something that never came into being. Since time is a property of the material universe, this ultimate cause must therefore be something that exists outside of time.
Now you might disagree with the need for an ultimate cause, as I suspect you will. Either way though, the point is that no theistic philosopher argues that “everything has a cause.” That’s pretty much a distortion of their approach.
FWIW I googled several terms like what is the theme of the book of job? and I’ll be darned if I can find any commentators and theologians who state that a “primary theme” “was that humans cannot know God.”
Perhaps “insight” is the wrong word - I meant the gathering of useful information or the formation of useful theories, i.e. Newton studies gravity and has an insight, defining accurate rules predicting how it operates even though he doesn’t know its true nature. Darwin studies finches and has an insight, letting him describe natural selection in a useful manner, though he’s ignorant of genetics.
What has ever been a comparable insight into the creator that we could actually test or use?
I think you’re pointing to science, really. And I don’t think looking at faith in order to further science is productive. It’s like trying to heat water by contemplating the softness of a kitten. You’ve opened the wrong toolbox. Now, personally, I don’t think that makes looking into a Creator or faith useless, just useless for certain things.
Fine, look for a creator. Without a standard of evidence, though, how will you know when you’ve found it? What will distinguish the creator you find from the story of Niflheim and Muspelheim?
I never thought I’d type this, but raindog is closer to what I learned in Hebrew School and in services than anyone else in this thread. The Shema describes the most important aspect of God - the Lord is your God, the Lord is one.
Forget images - after we got over Moses seeing God’s tush, we understood God has no image. One poem that we read in services said quite explicitly that God has no shape and no form. Our understanding came from the very explicit words God gave to the prophets and to Moses. The understanding is a functional understanding - follow the law, and you follow God. The Covenant is about what he expects of us and what we expect in return. That’s not to say there is a clear definition - the Mishnah and the Talmud testify to the understanding that we can’t expect to understand God in 25 words or less, and a truly educated person asks questions and argues, and doesn’t blindly follow the word. A lesson, by the way, that a lot of Christians could benefit from.
It all gets complicated by the fact that God, after some of this was written down, didn’t deliver on some promises, and had to be made even more complicated.
You’re suffering a failure of imagination. I used to like the Big Crunch also, but at the moment it looks pretty clear that’s not the way our universe works. But that doesn’t eliminate an eternal metauniverse, consisting of separate parent and child universes. Perhaps ours came from one. Our universe has a beginning, based on the evidence, but the meta-universe might not.
And you are incorrect about verifying the Big Bang, at least up to the point we can ever verify it. Big Bang theory had specific predictions, which did get verified very nicely - its why Penzias and Wilson got the Nobel Prize. Or do you think it was a coincidence that the CBR matched the prediction? We can get into inflation also, another case where the data matched the prediction. Sometimes the most satisfying theory (like the Big Crunch) doesn’t turn out to be true.
The beard… The flowing robes… The sandals… What, do I have to draw you a picture!!!
Seriously, for me it’s not about looking for or finding a Creator. It’s simply about believing he exists of not. After that, you can ponder away on whether he cares about you and what he might want of/from/for you.
This came up in passing, but I’ll repeat it as a specific question.
Does anyone who supports the idea that the origin of the universe argues for a creator think this creator has anything to do with any religion? If so, why?
Aren’t practically all religions invested in the creation of the universe?
How can we distinguish someone who says they believe in a creator from someone who is delusional or lying?
Sure, but they describe specific ways in which their god did it. There being a creator is not good enough - it has to be the one you believe in.
Yes, I’ve said so in this thread. I don’t believe I can prove it to you, though. And I’m not certain that only one religion is “right” in the most important ways. But I can offer no proof, only what I have personally experienced.
But I agreed with the original assertion, that as a matter of logic, it’s the prime mover that withstands logical scrutiny. My religion does not, but I don’t hold it as a matter of logic.
I don’t think you have to. Pay no mind to either of them if you’d like. I believe in a Creator, but I don’t think I’ve ever asked anyone to do something because of that. Heck, I don’t know for sure what the Creator wants, so I’d be loathe to ask someone to change their actions in one direction or another. In whatever way I’d ask you to change your actions, it would not be based solely upon my idea of a Creator. I owe you reasons that leave my particular belief in a Creator aside. I can also explain why I think as I do. If that helps, fine. If that doesn’t work, that’s fine too.
I do think we owe it to each other, and ourselves, to hear each other out. Heck, if I don’t, I risk not hearing something that may make great sense to me. And maybe fills in some holes in my current thinking. Or causes me to reframe things in my head completely.