Concept of God arising in multiple, different cultures

[wellwisher]

One thing the concept of God did, which helped human evolution, is it helped alter the cause and affect of natural instinct so humans could depart and develop choice. The animal visually sees the world with a cause and effect, based on their instinctive filter. Once you add god onto this natural reality perception, the new perception than enters consciousness, is the natural sensory data of the animal, plus a god filter that will overlay this. Instinct is not designed to deal with this dual perception.

For example, say there is a food item that the pre-humans have instinctively eaten for centuries. If we add god perception, now this same food item might belong to the god and therefore have a secondary subjective overlay. The pre-human no longer sees just that food so he cannot act on impulse. Rather he has an uneasy feeling associated with the food. There is a forming separation from instinctive reflex, so now the food can be put aside for the god; food storage. If they get really hungry, compulsive instinct will override and allow them to eat. But unless the unconscious is driving them for survival, they will sense an uneasiness, due to the god overlay, and use self restraint. The connection to instinctive is gradually broken; become human with choice apart from instinct.

Even today God images help develop will power in terms of their overlay to impulse; eternal damnation. The faithful fear the overlay and use restraint. The heathen will blindly impulse due to lack of overlay. The ancient cultures with gods would have more willpower and would enslave the natural cultures, so they could learn willpower using direct sensory restraint; slaves. The advanced cultures could do the same using abstractions of the mind as an overlay and did not need to done in a more animal trainer way.

 

[The Marquis]

You know, I'm not even really sure I can be bothered responding to the first bit. You're being silly.
....Meh, lull in the poker.

No, it's not what you said at all. You said (and you reiterate below) that the concept and the ability to conceptualize are one in the same. This is not true. It's no more true than the hammer is the ability to make tools. No, the hammer is a product of that intelligence, of that ability, not the ability itself.

No, I didn't. I said "Other than that the concept of god is not much different at all from the ability to conceptualise. It's merely a logical progression of it.".
This does not translate to them being "one and the same". You're attempting to misrepresent, but it's not going to work.
Pay particular attention to that second sentence, will you?.

Another nonsensical statement. One is a product of the other; they aren't the same thing. It's like how you're not your parents, but a product of them.

Actually "nonsensical" would be saying "one in the same" rather than "one and the same".
Again... what? Are you trying to convey that ""It's merely a logical progression" is in some way nonsensical, while "One is a product of the other" is a different point altogether?
What?

Okay, I mention sport and war because they are concepts, just as God is a concept. They aren't the ability to conceptualize, they're the products of that ability. I mean, this is really easy stuff, so why is it so difficult?

It isn't difficult. I'm only a little confused as to why you think it's such an important distinction.
So you need legs before you can run. And? Does this somehow prove that humans evolved legs separately, as opposed to humanity originating from a single point of origin with the legs already there?

Ilke I said.. semantics. I have no idea what you're arguing about.
The original argument ran something along the lines of the idea the multiple cultures having a concept of god seemingly independent of one another proves the existence of god.
My initial responses were not to you, but addressing that argument. So what the fuck are you trying to prove? why are you arguing with me?

You'll have to forgive me if I'm not familiar with your past arguments. If you don't want to get into it, I have no reason to just assume your claim here is valid.

Feral children have a single thing in common - their ability to understand the concept of god is severely limited. In the cases where it can be assumed they were in the wild at an extremely young age, it's non-existent. They just don't get it.
There is a lot of subject matter out there, go and read it if you're serious. I can't be bothered going into it all again, it's a complicated body of research to begin with.
One thing I will say (probably said it before) - if you want an idea as to what might be construed as instinct in humans, and what is learned behaviour... do a lot of reading regarding feral children. Granted, there isn't a lot out there, but.... what there is, is telling.

Really? So you think it's more likely that this one idea spread to every single culture in the world than it just happens to be something humans dream up when they're ignorant to the workings of the world around them? That it survived every displacement, every disaster? Really?

Yes, really. In the same way that ideas always survive. Political ideas, philosophical ideas. Did the ideas of republic and democracy survive the demise of Greece and Rome? Of course they bloody did. The entirety of human evolution has been the ongoing development of ideas. And over time, passed between cultures and peoples, they develop and diversify. But they don't die.

And you're misunderstanding one thing - it didn't "spread to every culture in the world". The basic idea was already there, granting the "Out of Africa" model.
The interchange of ideas led to a refinement of that idea. Hence the diversity and increasing sophistication of it where different cultures met, and the stagnation where they did not.

I think, really, that you really only have a problem with what I've said because you're so concerned with this distinction between the capability to conceptualise and the conceptualisation itself.
And really, there's no proof either way, only theories.
Personally, I tend to think that early man already had some religious structure in place prior to migrating from Africa. Probably more than one. Rocks, trees, antelopes, the sun. Whatever.
You don't.

....Is it worth all this? I mean, so what? That distinction does not invalidate what I'm saying at all. It's a pedantic distinction, and ultimately unprovable.

I don't think I need to say how ridiculous that is.

Actually, you do. Say it louder.

So if religion is homogeneous in isolated places, how in the world does that suggest that it comes from a single source? Contact complicates the ideas...except as its spreading? That doesn't hold water. It actually suggests the direct opposite, that groups of people tend to come up with similar superstitions that complicate and grow as they spread.

Ok, think about it.
The two most isolated continents on earth, America and Australia, had similar systems of belief when they were... settled. These remained largely static over time.This is, of course, as far as we know. both the Australian Aboriginal and the American native have some form of a dreamtime in play... which means they had these ideas as far back as their memories go, with only an oral tradition to keep them alive.
The mainland continents, by comparison, evolved progressively complex belief systems... via increased and increasingly complicated contact.

So, ok. You're saying both of these cultures, in isolation, somehow came up with similar systems. I'm saying they had the kernels of those ideas as they migrated across the world. Fact is, there's no proof either way... only conjecture.
I think what I think, and you think what you do. I have to say, though, that even the most recent advances in anthropology and archeology are leaning toward me... even while they create more confusion, particularly in China.

Look, honest question... how much of an understanding do you have of the different theories regarding human migration, including the timelines over which said migration is theorised to have occurred? It's important to have at least a basic understanding, and even more important to know quite a bit about it. When you do, you will go a long way toward answering your own question.

Of course it adds up. It's the only theory that does.

Don't be so bloody limited.

Unless you think it's more likely that one idea from a single source permeated every single culture on the planet and survives to this very day. I mean, by your logic, every concept came from the same place. Artistic expression? Check. Sport? Check. War? Check. I mean, it's laughable that you could hold such an opinion.

Actually, I find it laughable you don't.
It's no coincidence that the greatest early civilizations, those which are commonly credited with leading directly to the ideas of modern society, are concentrated around the hub of human expansion, while those at the outer reaches tended to languish.

And it's a bit of a reach to say that I've said every single concept originates from the same place. Again, misrepresentation.

Still, let's play:
War? Probably, yes. Tribes on tribes. No reason why not.
Sport? Who the hell knows. I have a feeling, though, that Grugg and Ogg from Ethiopia might have, once upon a time and before the migration, had a competition to see who could throw a rock the farthest.
Art? Again, who knows. The Africans, the Australian Aboriginal and the Native American used crushed rocks to create ochre (simplified of course), though. Art goes back a long, long way. You seem to believe they came about this knowledge independently of one another. So prove it. I'm going to assume they took it with them when they started wandering.

I mean, if you want to attempt to prove that any of these things sprang up in different places independently of one another, be my guest.
Evidence and timelines, however, would seem to indicate otherwise.

 

[rodereve]

One thing the concept of God did, which helped human evolution, is it helped alter the cause and affect of natural instinct so humans could depart and develop choice. The animal visually sees the world with a cause and effect, based on their instinctive filter. Once you add god onto this natural reality perception, the new perception than enters consciousness, is the natural sensory data of the animal, plus a god filter that will overlay this. Instinct is not designed to deal with this dual perception.

I do not agree with this. To say that the concept of God lead to the concept of CHOICE is absurd. Natural instinct still requires choice; imagine a lion scavenging for food. Either it goes for smaller prey (low investment, low reward) or larger prey (high investment, high reward), does not have any concept of God nor require it.

For example, say there is a food item that the pre-humans have instinctively eaten for centuries. If we add god perception, now this same food item might belong to the god and therefore have a secondary subjective overlay. The pre-human no longer sees just that food so he cannot act on impulse. Rather he has an uneasy feeling associated with the food. There is a forming separation from instinctive reflex, so now the food can be put aside for the god; food storage. If they get really hungry, compulsive instinct will override and allow them to eat. But unless the unconscious is driving them for survival, they will sense an uneasiness, due to the god overlay, and use self restraint. The connection to instinctive is gradually broken; become human with choice apart from instinct.

Food consumption did not require the concept of God either, that is hilarious! Easily proven, just follow your argument to its end, pre-humans that did not had the instinct to eat all their resources and left none for later would have DIED. and If overconsumption was prevented by the concept of God, then why is the world in the state it is today.

Even today God images help develop will power in terms of their overlay to impulse; eternal damnation. The faithful fear the overlay and use restraint. The heathen will blindly impulse due to lack of overlay. The ancient cultures with gods would have more willpower and would enslave the natural cultures, so they could learn willpower using direct sensory restraint; slaves. The advanced cultures could do the same using abstractions of the mind as an overlay and did not need to done in a more animal trainer way.

And this helps humanity, how? By using religion as propaganda. You did get one thing right but not in the way you thought, the concept of God did result in slaves, where colonialism occurred because one claimed the divine right over other people and their lands.

Also, operant conditioning studies is one of the most documented methods of research. When you pair food with adverse effects such as electrocution, animals soon learn the pattern to avoid eating the food. This all requires a man behind the machine to send the negative consequence. But when the electrocution comes randomly (without any pattern or intentional force), then it leads to the animal being highly stressed, confused, and eventually goes crazy. If humans live under the same conditions, believing in negative consequences without a higher power enforcing these consequences, they too will suffer the same end.

 

[Write4U]

One thing the concept of God did, which helped human evolution, is it helped alter the cause and affect of natural instinct so humans could depart and develop choice. The animal visually sees the world with a cause and effect, based on their instinctive filter. Once you add god onto this natural reality perception, the new perception than enters consciousness, is the natural sensory data of the animal, plus a god filter that will overlay this. Instinct is not designed to deal with this dual perception.

I agree with this and would go even further to say that the "concept of god" is really very simple to explain. When observing chimps in the wild, researchers found that during a monsoon most of the chimp tribe would huddle with fear from thunder (watch your dog during thunder) and trying to avoid getting wet.
However the alpha would run around, wielding a stick, beating the ground and bushes, screaming loud warning to this "unseen", powerful enemy which scared him and his with all the loud noises and flashing lights, while throwing water at him. This behavior was clearly defensive/aggressive toward an "unknown living enemy" and is a perfect example of early assumption of a supernatural threat.

Even today God images help develop will power in terms of their overlay to impulse; eternal damnation. The faithful fear the overlay and use restraint. The heathen will blindly impulse due to lack of overlay. The ancient cultures with gods would have more willpower and would enslave the natural cultures, so they could learn willpower using direct sensory restraint; slaves. The advanced cultures could do the same using abstractions of the mind as an overlay and did not need to done in a more animal trainer way.

This is why the early gods in mythology all had specific abilities and could perform miracles, Thor, Poseidon, Athena became the "symbolic human" interpretations of observed miracles which of course much later were identified as natural phenomena.

I propose that various "concepts" of god have existed since before the dawn of man and that religion began when the first prayer and/or offering was ritually performed.

 

[spidergoat]

I think it's far more likely that a culture's habits become encoded into their mythology. It would go something like this, they discover that a certain food is bad to eat, poison or causes allergic reactions, so in order to remember this knowledge and pass it on, they make up a story about it, perhaps a mythological figure put the plant there for a specific purpose and humans would be punished if they disturbed it. So, a perfectly natural taboo then becomes a supernatural taboo, and everyone can remember it, even if they don't know the origin of the myth. This is the same thing as the Hebrew taboo on eating pork, which has sound ecological reasons.

 

[spidergoat]

I think that some atheists here are working simultaneously with two mutually exclusive goals: 1. to find evidence of God, and 2. to define God. And then they switch between the two, so that at each step, they maintain the status quo, and maintain their atheism.

To give a less loaded example:
If one wants to find an apple, one first needs to know what an apple is, so that one has an idea of what one is looking for and is able to direct one's search. If one has no definition of an apple, an apple could be right in front of one in one's hand, and one wouldn't see it for an apple, as one lacks an understanding of what an apple is, an understanding which is necessary so as to be able to distinguish it from other things that are not an apple.

Sometimes, when people look for God, they seem to forget that if this is how they frame their search (ie. "a search for God"), they are already working with a definition of "God," and that therefore, they will find (or not) only things according to said definition.

Much like saying "I want evidence of X. But until I have evidence of X, I refuse to define what X is."

It's not the atheist's job to define God. In fact there is an infinite number of possible definitions. But we can evaluate and probably reject, most standard definitions. It's the religionist's job to keep redefining God until it is out of reach of any rational investigation. This is lightgigantic's standard operating principle.

 

[Write4U]

So it seems then that the OP is correct in stating that the concept of god arising even in different cultures. It is just that each culture produces a slightly different version of god.
And of course, here is where scripture cleverly proclaims that in order to keep man from becoming gods (by speaking the same language and having the same beliefs), god confounded their language (see Babel).

 

[Sarkus]

I propose that various "concepts" of god have existed since before the dawn of man and that religion began when the first prayer and/or offering was ritually performed.

You'd need to define concepts of god rather carefully to demonstrate that. I would say that "supernatural" does not imply a concept of god, but that "god" is the human conclusion of unexplained supernatural events. As such the "concepts" of god woud exist only as a product of humanity, and would not therefore exist "before the dawn of man".
But it's an interesting idea, just I would need to understand your definitions better/further before I (dis)agree with you.

 

[Write4U]

You'd need to define concepts of god rather carefully to demonstrate that. I would say that "supernatural" does not imply a concept of god, but that "god" is the human conclusion of unexplained supernatural events. As such the "concepts" of god woud exist only as a product of humanity, and would not therefore exist "before the dawn of man".
But it's an interesting idea, just I would need to understand your definitions better/further before I (dis)agree with you.

Yes, you are correct that the formalization and ritualization of religion (toward a specific god) is a human product. However it is precisely our inability to define the concept of god that allows for a speculative assumption of an unseen and unknowable "supernatural" force which directs events. IMO, this happened before hominids evolved into homo sapiens. Fear is a fundamental emotional and physical experience and offers a powerful incentive to defend the family by aggression and later by ritual appeasement (sacrifice).

I am actually still looking for a definition of god which is more satisfactory than the fear of a powerful "unknown being" exhibited by the male chimp. Offending god has dire consequences, no?

I am not ignoring the sophistication of Scripture, but IMO "moral teachings" could be accomplished without the concept of a sentient unknowable Father. In that respect we have not evolved in our basic intuition of meta-physical phenomena. But IMO, organized religion and ritual expressions evolved alongside the expansion and settlement of humans thoughout the world. And that's why we used myrrh, incense, and sage to cleanse the environment of harmful spirits.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myrrh
http://paganwiccan.about.com/od/bookofshadows/ig/Magical-Herbs/Sage.htm

 

[wynn]

It's not the atheist's job to define God.

If you use a word, and continually do so, it is only adequate to posit that you have some idea of what that word means or should mean.

When atheists say that they "lack belief in God," we can rightfully assume that they have some idea of what they mean by the word "God."

If you "lack belief in God," surely then you have some idea of what that is that you lack belief in, eh?

In fact there is an infinite number of possible definitions. But we can evaluate and probably reject, most standard definitions. It's the religionist's job to keep redefining God until it is out of reach of any rational investigation. This is lightgigantic's standard operating principle.

Nonsense. It's primarily the atheists who keep redefining terms, while all along keeping them merely implicit.

 

[Write4U]

If you use a word, and continually do so, it is only adequate to posit that you have some idea of what that word means or should mean.
When atheists say that they "lack belief in God," we can rightfully assume that they have some idea of what they mean by the word "God."
If you "lack belief in God," surely then you have some idea of what that is that you lack belief in, eh?

Nonsense. It's primarily the atheists who keep redefining terms, while all along keeping them merely implicit.

That is a strawman argument, moreover it is false. God has been defined and redefined at nauseum by religions since the beginning of time and it is they who have no idea what it is they really do believe in. This phenomenon is called "faith". It has nothing to do with "knowledge".

Then you seem to overlook that atheists have no use for the word god and do NOT use the word except in debate. Throughout history and in different geographical locations there have been so many interpretations that no one knows what the word god means, including theists. There is not even consensus in the theist communities about the very concepts of god, other than a vague creative force, either sentient or not, intentional or not, loving or not, desiring of adulation or not, etc.

At least atheist have concensus that god (almost certainly) does not exists except as metaphor. My own interpretation of what is meant by god is no more than the common denominator of all things, Potential. This concept can be defended on all levels and dimensions of the "known" universe. Potential functions as god in every respect, sans the intentional, motivated sentient intelligence which requires worship of a sort and which does not survive Ockham's razor.

This may explain my position why I reject the concept of an Abrahamic god altogether and am more inclined to satisfy any agnostic curiosity in the Deistic metaphysics, the assumption of a wholeness, no more, no less.

One of the most impressive theories emerging out of scientific cosmology respecting these ancient truths was set forth by the late physicist, David Bohm in his book, Wholeness and the Implicate Order. Using the language of mathematics, Bohm set out to describe the transcendent reality and its graded energetic hierarchy in four basic states or orders of energy beginning with the physical world, which he called the Explicate Order.

'The Explicate Order, weakest of all energy systems, resonates out of and is an expression of an infinitely more powerful order of energy called the Implicate order. It is the precursor of the Explicate, the dreamlike vision or the ideal presentation of that which is to become manifest as a physical object. The Implicate order implies within it all physical universes. However, it resonates from an energy field which is yet greater, the realm of pure potential. It is pure potential because nothing is implied within it; implications form in the implicate order and then express themselves in the explicate order. Bohm goes on to postulate a final state of infinite [zero point] energy which he calls the realm of insight intelligence. The creative process springs from this realm. Energy is generated there, gathers its pure potential, and implies within its eventual expression as the explicate order' (Will Keepin, David Bohm, Noetic Science Journal).

When Bohm's resonant fields are arranged in a vibrational hierarchy they represent energy in successive states of manifestation from infinitely subtle to the gross physical reality.

http://www.quantumyoga.org/QuantumBrahman.html

I submit that the application of the concept "God" has never proved useful in the physical sciences. However, all known physical and metaphysical properties known to sciences require the potential (Implicate) for reality itself to become manifest (Explicate).

It is up to the theist to logically and reliably prove the claims of the properties ascribed to a god by general knowledge of what may be called purely metaphysical speculation.

 

[waterpump999]

That is a strawman argument, moreover it is false. God has been defined and redefined at nauseum by religions since the beginning of time and it is they who have no idea what it is they really do believe in. This phenomenon is called "faith". It has nothing to do with "knowledge".
<snip>
I submit that the application of the concept "God" has never proved useful in the physical sciences. However, all known physical and metaphysical properties known to sciences require the potential (Implicate) for reality itself to become manifest (Explicate).

It is up to the theist to logically and reliably prove the claims of the properties ascribed to a god by general knowledge of what may be called purely metaphysical speculation.

As a theist and trained professional scientist, I make the following comments:

True science and true religion are two systems of truth that allow humanity to progress, and yes there is 'bad science' as well as 'bad religion'

My understanding of 'God' as an uncreated, literally non-existent entity is predicated by the realization that something that is uncreated and non-existent is unknowable. Knowledge about 'God' is revealed and acceptance of that revealed knowledge is down to belief. Religious truths are 'spiritual truths' and religious proofs are 'spiritual proofs'. Religious truths, like scientific truths, are progressive and relative.

However scientific truths evolve through observation, experiment, theories and proofs that can be tested by measurement, data, mathematical modelling and logical argument, and as we evolve in our understanding so scientific truths evolve, change and become refined to most accurately fit the observed data.

But we know that both systems of 'truth' have their limitations. Logic systems are limited as defined by Godel's Theorem, and our understandings are limited to the extent of our observations and data, while religious truth, whist containing eternal principles, is limited by being temporally relative to the age in which it was revealed and subject to belief in the authority through which it is revealed. Yet both are complimentary.

Both provide progressive systems of complementary knowledge to further the advancement of a progressive human civilization. Science progresses by our own efforts and historically is rarely informed (other than retrospectively) by religion, it forms the foundation of the progress of our material and technological civilization, while religious knowledge provides a progressive system of ethics, morals, administrative order and justice evolving in scope from the individual, family, tribe, nation state to global civilization and is ultimately the cause of the 'spiritualisation' of humanity.

"If religion were contrary to logical reason then it would cease to be a religion and be merely a tradition. Religion and science are the two wings upon which man's intelligence can soar into the heights, with which the human soul can progress. It is not possible to fly with one wing alone! Should a man try to fly with the wing of religion alone he would quickly fall into the quagmire of superstition, whilst on the other hand, with the wing of science alone he would also make no progress, but fall into the despairing slough of materialism." (religious quote)

 

[elte]

Hi waterpump999,

The thing is, there doesn't ever seem to be revelations. The revelations seem to be stuff that people would think of anyway, given their circumstances.

 

[waterpump999]

The thing is, there doesn't ever seem to be revelations. The revelations seem to be stuff that people would think of anyway, given their circumstances.

Hi Elte, Like I said its down to belief. If you don't believe in any form of Divine Revelation - end of conversation. I'm not here to persuade you. I respect your opinion.

 

[Balerion]

You know, I'm not even really sure I can be bothered responding to the first bit. You're being silly.
....Meh, lull in the poker.

And you're trolling. This will be my last reply to you on this subject (and likely on any other).

No, I didn't. I said "Other than that the concept of god is not much different at all from the ability to conceptualise. It's merely a logical progression of it.".
This does not translate to them being "one and the same". You're attempting to misrepresent, but it's not going to work.
Pay particular attention to that second sentence, will you?.

Saying that the concept of God is merely a logical progression of the ability to conceptualize is, first and foremost, a nonsensical statement. That is like saying the hot dog is a logical progression of the ability to conceptualize hot dogs. And if it did have some hidden meaning beneath its clumsy grammar, it would contradict your original claim, which was this:

We're talking a single, ideological concept; the capability of the human mind to envisage that agency to begin with.

In this passage, you define the "single, ideological concept" of God as "the capability of the human mind to envisage that agency to begin with," and you're simply trying to equivocate now that you've been called on it. (this would be like saying the hot dog is the ability to conceptualize the hot dog) It's understandable; you've jumped into the deep end without realizing, and you're embarrassed. It happens.

Actually "nonsensical" would be saying "one in the same" rather than "one and the same".

Yes, that would also count as "nonsensical." It was a mistake on my part. See how easy that was? When I say something silly or stupid or incorrect, I own it. Something you should consider.

Again... what? Are you trying to convey that ""It's merely a logical progression" is in some way nonsensical, while "One is a product of the other" is a different point altogether?
What?

If you're having this much trouble keeping up, I suggest reconsidering your participation in this discussion. Saying things like "A thing is the same as its ability to conceptualize it," might win over the dull minds at Pokerstars, but it's probably not going to fly here.

To answer your question, yes, that was one of the nonsensical things you've said. The others are referenced above. God can be a concept that naturally evolves from superstition, but it can't a natural evolution of the ability to conceptualize God. That would be a nonsensical statement. You would be saying that God is not just a concept but an ability.

It isn't difficult. I'm only a little confused as to why you think it's such an important distinction.

Because it is an important distinction. If you had a better grasp of the language, you'd know that.

So you need legs before you can run. And? Does this somehow prove that humans evolved legs separately, as opposed to humanity originating from a single point of origin with the legs already there?

Quite the non-sequitur there. Since I can't fathom how this addresses anything I've said, I'll pose the more apt question: Does the fact that all humans know how to run prove that the concept of running came from a single source?

Ilke I said.. semantics. I have no idea what you're arguing about.

It's semantics in the sense that I'm explaining to you why the words you use are resulting in nonsensical and contradictory claims. I'm sorry if that troubles you, or you find it unfair that I can only go by what you say as opposed (perhaps) to what you really mean, but I'm not a mind-reader. However, if you can't understand the very basic problems with what you've said, then I again suggest you maybe find a new hobby.

The original argument ran something along the lines of the idea the multiple cultures having a concept of god seemingly independent of one another proves the existence of god.
My initial responses were not to you, but addressing that argument. So what the fuck are you trying to prove? why are you arguing with me?

If you were trying to have a one-on-one conversation with another poster, you should have replied via PM. However, since you posted to a public forum, you can't really gripe when people other than the person you replied to respond. And I'm arguing with you because you said something incredibly stupid. I was trying to point out the error in your thinking, but you're either incapable of understanding it, or too stubborn/proud/grouchy to admit it.

Feral children have a single thing in common - their ability to understand the concept of god is severely limited. In the cases where it can be assumed they were in the wild at an extremely young age, it's non-existent. They just don't get it.
There is a lot of subject matter out there, go and read it if you're serious. I can't be bothered going into it all again, it's a complicated body of research to begin with.
One thing I will say (probably said it before) - if you want an idea as to what might be construed as instinct in humans, and what is learned behaviour... do a lot of reading regarding feral children. Granted, there isn't a lot out there, but.... what there is, is telling.

Can you cite me a source that supports this (almost certainly fictitious) claim? You'll have to forgive me if I don't take your word for it. What works have you read, for example?

And just so we're clear, even if it were true that that feral children don't generally understand the concept of God, it doesn't discount the notion that the concept of God arises independently. It might require generations of superstitious behavior to give rise to the fundamental concept of agency. It doesn't have to arise wholecloth in every human's mind, and to suggest that it should only displays how little of this subject you actually grasp.

Yes, really. In the same way that ideas always survive. Political ideas, philosophical ideas. Did the ideas of republic and democracy survive the demise of Greece and Rome? Of course they bloody did.

Because they were written down, genius.

The entirety of human evolution has been the ongoing development of ideas. And over time, passed between cultures and peoples, they develop and diversify. But they don't die.

Of course they do. History isn't one unbroken line from the dawn of civilization until now. That's why some places have certain technologies and then they don't, and why other concepts--like the pyramid--exist thousands of miles and centuries apart completely independently of each other. And if ideas don't die, what were the Dark Ages? Your claim simply doesn't have legs.

And you're misunderstanding one thing - it didn't "spread to every culture in the world". The basic idea was already there, granting the "Out of Africa" model.
The interchange of ideas led to a refinement of that idea. Hence the diversity and increasing sophistication of it where different cultures met, and the stagnation where they did not.

That doesn't follow. Increased sophistication where cultures meet (which isn't even demonstrably true; what you can point to is an overlap of ideas, such as the way Jesus Christ is an amalgamation of pagan gods. He isn't any more complex than them, nor is his religion) would only suggest that religion, like any idea, grows and changes as it is introduced to more people with different ideas. It doesn't suggest that the concept of godhood itself is therefore spread; in fact, it suggest the opposite.

And it's also implausible to suggest that one concept was carried out of Africa and survived until these cultures all met again. That's a ludicrous assumption with literally nothing to support it, except for you asinine claim above, which I just showed you was incorrect.

I think, really, that you really only have a problem with what I've said because you're so concerned with this distinction between the capability to conceptualise and the conceptualisation itself.

That's not the only reason I have a problem with what you said; the first point I responded to was your assertion that there's no reason to believe it didn't come from one source. Then you went and threw up on your shoes. And the fact that you can't see the difference between the ability to conceptualize something and a particular concept itself is troubling.

And really, there's no proof either way, only theories.

Obviously, which is why I said that, in my opinion, it's about probability. And I gave you my reasoning. You provided faulty logic and what I'm presuming are misunderstood tales of feral children.

Personally, I tend to think that early man already had some religious structure in place prior to migrating from Africa. Probably more than one. Rocks, trees, antelopes, the sun. Whatever.
You don't.

I'm not saying that they didn't. I'm saying that to assume these concepts survived in an unbroken line from then to now is absurd. And it's also worth noting that not all groups in Africa had access to each other, so being in Africa doesn't exclude the concept arise independently.

....Is it worth all this? I mean, so what? That distinction does not invalidate what I'm saying at all. It's a pedantic distinction, and ultimately unprovable.

Worth what? You're projecting again. I'm not the one suffering embarrassment for getting in over my head. Your arguments are mostly nonsense and easily defeated; the difficult part is making you understand where you went wrong, but you're clearly incapable or unwilling, so I'm not bothered.

Actually, you do. Say it louder.

If only typing in ALL CAPS would help you understand, I'd do it.

Ok, think about it.
The two most isolated continents on earth, America and Australia, had similar systems of belief when they were... settled. These remained largely static over time.This is, of course, as far as we know. both the Australian Aboriginal and the American native have some form of a dreamtime in play... which means they had these ideas as far back as their memories go, with only an oral tradition to keep them alive.
The mainland continents, by comparison, evolved progressively complex belief systems... via increased and increasingly complicated contact.

Every religion has some connection to dreams. Even in Judeo-Christian mythology, important events are foretold through dream visitations and visions. It's a very basic concept. However, nothing of what you say here suggests that the concept of godhood comes from a single source. All it suggests is that ideas diversify as they spread. That's not some great revelation. And the similarities in these basic concepts should tell you that we all sort of come up with the same basic ideas when we're left to it. I mean, what are the ingredients of religion? Superstition? Ancestor worship? The desire to idealize humanity? None of these core ingredients need to be learned, so I see no reason why the concept of God needs to come from a single source when it so obviously could come to anyone. Perhaps it requires some work to get there, but it could be done. And it's certainly more probable than the idea of it surviving from the dawn of man in an unbroken line.

So, ok. You're saying both of these cultures, in isolation, somehow came up with similar systems. I'm saying they had the kernels of those ideas as they migrated across the world. Fact is, there's no proof either way... only conjecture.

Proof only exists in math. But there certainly is evidence suggestive of my position. Like how the Aztecs and the Egyptians both built pyramids despite having no contact and thus no influence on each other.

I think what I think, and you think what you do. I have to say, though, that even the most recent advances in anthropology and archeology are leaning toward me... even while they create more confusion, particularly in China.

Another baseless claim. I'm not simply going to take you at your word, especially given your unethical conduct. Either support it or don't offer it.

Look, honest question... how much of an understanding do you have of the different theories regarding human migration, including the timelines over which said migration is theorised to have occurred? It's important to have at least a basic understanding, and even more important to know quite a bit about it. When you do, you will go a long way toward answering your own question.

I'm not entirely ignorant of the various models. How is this relevant?

Actually, I find it laughable you don't.
It's no coincidence that the greatest early civilizations, those which are commonly credited with leading directly to the ideas of modern society, are concentrated around the hub of human expansion, while those at the outer reaches tended to languish.

Another non-sequitur. This has literally nothing to do with the claim that god as a concept had a single source. It's also incorrect to say that fringe societies "languish." They seem to do just fine, they simply don't advance in the way that multicultural societies do.

And it's a bit of a reach to say that I've said every single concept originates from the same place. Again, misrepresentation.

It's exactly what you said:

Well, just to reiterate, there isn't any particular reason to believe the concept of god arose in different cultures at all

Still, let's play:
War? Probably, yes. Tribes on tribes. No reason why not.

So you think the concept of war itself did not arise independently, that it came from one source?

Sport? Who the hell knows. I have a feeling, though, that Grugg and Ogg from Ethiopia might have, once upon a time and before the migration, had a competition to see who could throw a rock the farthest.

And in your opinion this is the source of all sport to come after?

Art? Again, who knows. The Africans, the Australian Aboriginal and the Native American used crushed rocks to create ochre (simplified of course), though. Art goes back a long, long way. You seem to believe they came about this knowledge independently of one another. So prove it. I'm going to assume they took it with them when they started wandering.

You dig yourself a hole when you make ludicrous claims such as this one, that artistic expression is a learned social construct rather than an innate human desire, and then demand your opposition to "prove" it isn't. This is the equivalent of a theist asking an atheist to prove God doesn't exist. No, it's worse, because we actually know that the desire to express oneself creatively is innate.

I mean, if you want to attempt to prove that any of these things sprang up in different places independently of one another, be my guest.
Evidence and timelines, however, would seem to indicate otherwise.

What evidence? What timelines? You talk endlessly about this, and studies, yet you don't submit any of them to the discussion. Make good on something for once.

 

[elte]

Hi Elte, Like I said its down to belief. If you don't believe in any form of Divine Revelation - end of conversation. I'm not here to persuade you. I respect your opinion.

We're both here to persuade others.

 

[leopold]

Saying that the concept of God is merely a logical progression of the ability to conceptualize is, first and foremost, a nonsensical statement.

it's no more illogical or nonsensical than you envisioning a group of chemical elements organizing themselves into cells, then into plants, then into animals, then into humanity.
why oh why would it be nonsensical to say there is something more than man?
don't even start with the well we have proof of evolution.
no aspect of evolution has been demonstrated true.

 

[Balerion]

it's no more illogical or nonsensical than you envisioning a group of chemical elements organizing themselves into cells, then into plants, then into animals, then into humanity.

What does this have to do with the topic?

why oh why would it be nonsensical to say there is something more than man?

What? What does that even mean? What are you talking about?

don't even start with the well we have proof of evolution.
no aspect of evolution has been demonstrated true.

Well that's just a flat-out untrue statement. Just as one example since it's flu season, how do you think those viruses become resistant to antibiotics? Magic?

Why wouldn't you want to educate yourself on a topic that interests you? I don't understand that mentality. You'd rather be ignorant to the facts and spout nonsense than actually learn something about it?

 

[leopold]

What does this have to do with the topic?

other than showing how people envision increasingly complex objects nothing.

What? What does that even mean? What are you talking about?

it was a simple and direct question.

Well that's just a flat-out untrue statement.

words are cheap.

Just as one example since it's flu season, how do you think those viruses become resistant to antibiotics? Magic?

no, by adaptation.
don't confuse adaption with evolution, it hasn't been shown that one applies to the other.

 

[spidergoat]

it's no more illogical or nonsensical than you envisioning a group of chemical elements organizing themselves into cells, then into plants, then into animals, then into humanity.
why oh why would it be nonsensical to say there is something more than man?
don't even start with the well we have proof of evolution.
no aspect of evolution has been demonstrated true.

Evolution has been demonstrated true. We have a working theory that undermines all of modern biology. You don't have anything like that for God. The God hypothesis makes no predictions.