As regards the OP:
“You are utterly the stupidest, most self-centered, appallingest excuse for an anthropomorphic representation on this or any other plane!” – Death to Dream, The Sandman: The Sound of Her Wings
And that’s what I think gods are: anthropomorphic representations of collective events and experiences; thus, it is no surprise that versions of the same gods show up in wildly divergent cultures.
No doubt!
And (maybe this has been said already) although all cultures used to need thunder gods and fire gods to explain those particular mysteries, and therefore representations of each appeared in multiple cultures, we have gradually wittled down our mysteries for which we feel a need for a God to one: that of creation. Thus: the emergence and staying power of a monotheistic creator contstruct.
We certainly have more mysteries, but I guess we feel no need to establish a devotional religion to a Unified Theory God since we have some belief that eventually science may obviate the need for that as well, and it is fairly easy to wrap that into the Creator’s domain anyway. But the core power of the Creator (i.e., creation as opposed to fire and thunder) deals with a pre-time, extra-universal concept which science may never be able to tackle. Thus, once again, the staying power of the monotheistic, creator god, much to the chagrin of atheists who have seen every other god obviated but that one.
At least religions are figuring out that multiple gods are easier to make unnecessary than a single, full package deal. That shows an intelligent ability to be responsive to the consumer. After all, if science wittles away at a piece of the package, the mono-God is still there, albeit gradually modernized to adjust to the modern needs.
Hi Lib. I’m interested in the statement above. Can you provide an example where a negative has been proven?