Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
sci-nerd

God without scriptures?

191 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

psyche101
55 minutes ago, Habitat said:

The blank remains. Otherwise this conversation would not exist. As for a line of division, well that would be beyond my ken .

There will always be blanks, the universe is a huge and diverse place, but making up gods really doesn't help. It just convoluted the process. I see it as man's ego. Insisting we have answers. A truly humble person would not posit God as an answer to any question. It's a made up answer that any mind can grasp. That's why the idea is so popular, people like to think they know thing they don't. Only nature really provided answers, not men, not our gods either. We own God, not the other way around. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Habitat
12 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

There will always be blanks, the universe is a huge and diverse place, but making up gods really doesn't help. It just convoluted the process. I see it as man's ego. Insisting we have answers. A truly humble person would not posit God as an answer to any question. It's a made up answer that any mind can grasp. That's why the idea is so popular, people like to think they know thing they don't. Only nature really provided answers, not men, not our gods either. We own God, not the other way around. 

Your thesis is that if it ain't accessible to reason, it either doesn't exist, or might as well not exist. Surprisingly, there is a thread of human wisdom that holds that there is accessibility, but it not by your preferred method of apprehension. Ask 3 eye about it, he has the book about it, written by an Evelyn Underhill.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
1 minute ago, Habitat said:

Your thesis is that if it ain't accessible to reason, it either doesn't exist, or might as well not exist. Surprisingly, there is a thread of human wisdom that holds that there is accessibility, but it not by your preferred method of apprehension. Ask 3 eye about it, he has the book about it, written by an Evelyn Underhill.

Why wouldn't reason be a more likely option? Historically that has a perfect hit rate. Why would a convoluted idea created by minds struggling to comprehend mysteries with long winded idealogies be a more likely answer? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
3 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Why wouldn't reason be a more likely option? Historically that has a perfect hit rate. Why would a convoluted idea created by minds struggling to comprehend mysteries with long winded idealogies be a more likely answer? 

Reason is indeed the main game in this world, but occasionally people get intimations, sometimes undeniable intimations, that there is more to reality that just that ruled by reason and causality as we understand it. I managed to get through life OK without those intimations, but always in the back of the mind, usually well out of our focus, there is the sense of the insolubility (by reason) of the "riddle of existence". If those intimations do appear, the old riddle of existence again exercises the mind.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
4 hours ago, psyche101 said:

That's not what the Bible says though is it. What about things like the 10 commandments? The people who spoke to God? If there really is a god, what's to say that's not exactly how oy went down? 

10 Commandments... How do we know what happened? Moses told us. No direct words of God written down. An anecdote, if you will. And what happened to those 10 Commandments? He tossed them at the people, then made copies and put them in the Ark. Do we have the tablets? No. So then how can we say any of the word in the Bible are the actual words of God? That then leaves that they are the Words "OF" God. Meaning his statements and written recollections of those who had heard Him.

Quote

But without the Bible, as the thread title states, would we have the abrahamic  version of God?

I'd imagine that without the Bible the various Abrahamic religions would have diverged wildly over time. Possibly to the point, 2000 years later, we'd not recognize it compared to what we have today.

Just as the argument goes that morality would diverge/vary wildly over time without some written law/tradition that codifies morality.

Quote

God is what we have created through the Bible, and in modern times, many pick and choose what they want to believe. If God really does exist, did he not say he is the one and only? And anything else is directly offensive? Then how can personal religions, which really do create many versions of the God who said that not be in defiance of that God? 

True, many pick and chose, but as long as they work within the confines of the various higher order requirements, that could easily fall under Paul's doctrine of "Anything is permissible...". 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
3 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Why wouldn't reason be a more likely option? Historically that has a perfect hit rate. Why would a convoluted idea created by minds struggling to comprehend mysteries with long winded idealogies be a more likely answer? 

Ah, but logic doesn't cover everything that chaotic, emotion driven, (as Spock said) illogical... humans might need answered, or tell them how to act. Thus social strictures are necessary. And institutionalized/tradition based strictures are the easiest way to do so over time.

Religion is a tool in the tool box of humanity. I'd agree that the tool is becoming antiquated, but it still works, and why throw out a tool that still works, just because you bought a new tool a couple hours ago and THINK it is going to do the same job? The LOGICAL thing to do would be to use the new tool for a while, THEN discard the old tool. IMHO Humanism hasn't had a long enough run to prove that humans are intrinsically good enough to function without religion.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
8 hours ago, psyche101 said:

And its not about an authority figure. As such, although aspects like Buddhism are considered religions, I'm just not sure that descriptor is appropriate. Buddhists have a spiritual nature sure, but also encompass knowledge and change. I can very much respect that. I just see that as a peaceful way of life, miles away from Abrahamic religious ideals. 

:)

Absolutely, couldn't be better and on top of the world. This year is turning around for me big time. I'm loving life again :)

Wonderful, I am so glad to hear this and always knew it would be matter of time. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RavenHawk
On 2/26/2019 at 4:59 PM, sci-nerd said:

Would God even be a subject today, if it wasn't for the Bible?

Absolutely!  Without the Bible, the knowledge of GOD would still be imparted word of mouth, especially with Jesus.  It would be like the early days of Christianity.  The message of Christ does not need a book to spread and grow.  Without scripture, I suppose that there would be more miracles but in time people would be recording their experiences and testimonies.  And eventually, there would be some kind of Bible.

 

How much do we owe the Bible for today's theism? Including the Quran, which is post Bible (and obviously strongly inspired by it!).

Don’t confuse theism with GOD.  They are two different things.  Theism is the interpretation Man associates with GOD.  But for that reason, theism (more than the Bible) has influenced how GOD is viewed.  The Bible has been interpreted in many different ways.  Those interpretations are what defines any particular theism.  The Quran is a special case.  ‘Inspired’ may not be the proper term to use??

 

Take into account the emergence of science, during the last 200 years.

What about it?  GOD is not anti-science.  Some interpretations of the Bible or theisms would indicate that, others would not.

 

Would we just add an S, and say Gods ??!

Perhaps for those that do not believe in GOD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquila King
9 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Why wouldn't reason be a more likely option? Historically that has a perfect hit rate. Why would a convoluted idea created by minds struggling to comprehend mysteries with long winded idealogies be a more likely answer? 

I don't disagree with your premise, that reason and logic should be the ultimate standard by which we arrive at all truth. 

However it's been my experience that many of the most irrational and unreasonable people out there claim to arrive at their position 'logically' through 'reason' and 'evidence'. Just look at any religious apologist to know what i mean.

I know that they're wrong. Just saying that 'reason' is what most people claim to base their positions on, which means it isn't exactly some objective standard that all can agree on. In other words, no one agrees on what's 'reasonable', so it's kinda pointless to say "I support reason and you don't" since that's basically what most people say despite being wrong.

Might as well say "I support being correct." I mean who doesn't say that?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
17 hours ago, Habitat said:

Reason is indeed the main game in this world, but occasionally people get intimations, sometimes undeniable intimations, that there is more to reality that just that ruled by reason and causality as we understand it. I managed to get through life OK without those intimations, but always in the back of the mind, usually well out of our focus, there is the sense of the insolubility (by reason) of the "riddle of existence". If those intimations do appear, the old riddle of existence again exercises the mind.

We look fir anomalies so we see them. I don't see how attributing superstitions is any more valid than stating the human eye is too complex to evolve on its own. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
1 minute ago, psyche101 said:

We look fir anomalies so we see them. I don't see how attributing superstitions is any more valid than stating the human eye is too complex to evolve on its own. 

No, I am not at all inclined to default to wacky explanations for "anomalies", which is probably why I have seen so many, I was a slow learner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
14 hours ago, DieChecker said:

10 Commandments... How do we know what happened? Moses told us. No direct words of God written down. An anecdote, if you will. And what happened to those 10 Commandments? He tossed them at the people, then made copies and put them in the Ark. Do we have the tablets? No. So then how can we say any of the word in the Bible are the actual words of God? That then leaves that they are the Words "OF" God. Meaning his statements and written recollections of those who had heard Him.

But that puts the existance of God in doubt more so than the claim of his word. All we have to refer to the Gus idea is the bible. Nothing indicates  the existence of God other than man's ideas. 

Quote

I'd imagine that without the Bible the various Abrahamic religions would have diverged wildly over time. Possibly to the point, 2000 years later, we'd not recognize it compared to what we have today.

I'd agree, that's the thing though. God could be anything we decided on. If God was real surely that would not be the case. 

Quote

Just as the argument goes that morality would diverge/vary wildly over time without some written law/tradition that codifies morality.

I'm really not sure I agree that would be inevitable though. Animal kingdoms have hierarchies, and as the sating goes, the meek inherit the earth. There's only so far a dictator can go as we saw in the French revolution. 

Quote

True, many pick and chose, but as long as they work within the confines of the various higher order requirements, that could easily fall under Paul's doctrine of "Anything is permissible...". 

Its a personal idea then though. Its not conforming to one god like he said to, and he makes it very clear the he is a jealous god. If anything is permissable, then are the fundamentalists who follow the word direct from the Bible covered and justified? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
psyche101
14 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Ah, but logic doesn't cover everything that chaotic, emotion driven, (as Spock said) illogical... humans might need answered, or tell them how to act. Thus social strictures are necessary. And institutionalized/tradition based strictures are the easiest way to do so over time.

Religion is a tool in the tool box of humanity. I'd agree that the tool is becoming antiquated, but it still works, and why throw out a tool that still works, just because you bought a new tool a couple hours ago and THINK it is going to do the same job? The LOGICAL thing to do would be to use the new tool for a while, THEN discard the old tool. IMHO Humanism hasn't had a long enough run to prove that humans are intrinsically good enough to function without religion.

I agree mostly, except I feel humanism is ready to take over. But that's admitting God doesn't exist, which I feel is more what people are struggling with. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
8 hours ago, Aquila King said:

I don't disagree with your premise, that reason and logic should be the ultimate standard by which we arrive at all truth. 

However it's been my experience that many of the most irrational and unreasonable people out there claim to arrive at their position 'logically' through 'reason' and 'evidence'. Just look at any religious apologist to know what i mean.

I know that they're wrong. Just saying that 'reason' is what most people claim to base their positions on, which means it isn't exactly some objective standard that all can agree on. In other words, no one agrees on what's 'reasonable', so it's kinda pointless to say "I support reason and you don't" since that's basically what most people say despite being wrong.

Might as well say "I support being correct." I mean who doesn't say that?

The reason isn't validated though, except by others of the same mindset. We can see Ken Hams 'reasoning' when he stepped up to debate Bill Nye, but the majority of the audience well supported Nye and considered Ham to be a 'ham'. 

71768879c37b348463ce62b9a9a47dac99c697e2

Which doesn't support the polls that say that a large number of people support creation. So one has to wonder, what's going on here? Are the polls rigged, or are people just wary of being seen as opposing creation? 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
29 minutes ago, Habitat said:

No, I am not at all inclined to default to wacky explanations for "anomalies", which is probably why I have seen so many, I was a slow learner.

I'm not sure that creation was so whacky for its time though. It seemed to answer questions according to the knowledge we had. It strikes me that there is no good reason that today's superstitions are just the same sort of idea. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aquila King
2 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

71768879c37b348463ce62b9a9a47dac99c697e2

Thanks, haven't seen the Polls after that debate. That helps to restore a little of my faith in humanity there. :lol:

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.