Concept of God arising in multiple, different cultures

[lightgigantic]

We don't really view superstition that way. I'm pretty sure that in the early days science was thought to be the superstition, not as we see it now as observable things we can verify, and we know do get verified, and we actually benefit from them in real life. For example, we get our antibiotics because we think that researchers have observed that they kill the germs in petri dishes. I don't think faith healing works supernaturally because I've never seen evidence for it. What we know is best a guess based on evidence, however, the science works consistently while the superstition never seems to hold up to scrutiny. I can light a fire, and because of science, I know what is happening.

I don't think you understand.

Empiricism, due to the very nature it arrives at conclusions or draws from information, simply doesn't have the scope to lend authority to explicit causes. IOW, it relies on a sort of metonymic reasoning that never approaches the holistic, much like division by 2 of a number with value never arrives at zero.

IOW empiricism can never hope to invalidate the notion of god simply because whatever it claims to know is shrouded in mystery at either end of the macro/micro-cosm

 

[lightgigantic]

This topic suggest that God was a natural part of human evolution and had practical purposes for all humans. For the sake or argument, say you took the atheits position and assume god was only in the imagination. This still creates the possibility of adding projection overlay onto sensory reality, which can cause departure from natural instinct.

An example is the night sky. The animal or the instinctive prehuman could see the night sky. Since the sky is nether a threat or food, they will pay no further mind. Those with a religion induction within the imagination, might see more than just the night sky, because they will the sky overlayed with images (gods) or odd vibes from the imagination. There is no instinct to deal with this composite, so they may continue to look out at the sky with fear or curiosity. Some plot the stars to explain what they sense or feel that have no precedent in natural evolution; first psychologically modern humans.

I would guess most early innovation was based on this religion projection basis, since natural instinct tends to be conservative and does not deviate, quickly. As an experiment, we can have two groups of apes. One group, we will similate unconscious projection with movie projector we shine onto reality.The second group of apes will the same background and no projector. Then we see team learns something new qucker.

Learning about reality is useful to modern times. But the religion projector is more useful if you need to get past natural and invent a new path.

the fallacy of this argument is the notion that issues of projection are somehow transcended through sensory observation. IOW its a false idea to simply equate empiricism with reality.

Below is a list of gods of fire, which brough the use of fire and smithing to various cultures. The animal sees no need but the religious learn about fire.
Adranus
Aganju
Agni
Arshi Tngri
BBlack God (Navajo mythology)
CCacus
Manco Cápac
EEate
GGedi (mythology)
Gerra (god)
Gibil
Grannus
HHephaestus
Huracan
IIshum
JJacawitz
KKagu-tsuchi
Kōjin
Kresnik (deity)
LLogi
MMixcoatl
NNusku
OOgoun
PPeklenc
P cont.Perun
SSethlans (mythology)
Svarog
TTatewari
The Kitchen god
Tohil
VVerbti
Vulcan (mythology)
XXiuhtecuhtli
Xolotl
ZZhu Rong (god)

you could draw an even more diverse list of names different cultures have for "trees".

This does nothing to suggest that the notion of "trees" are some sort of false projection, etc

 

[lightgigantic]

I don't think you understand.

Empiricism, due to the very nature it arrives at conclusions or draws from information, simply doesn't have the scope to lend authority to explicit causes. IOW, it relies on a sort of metonymic reasoning that never approaches the holistic, much like division by 2 of a number with value never arrives at zero.

IOW empiricism can never hope to invalidate the notion of god simply because whatever it claims to know is shrouded in mystery at either end of the macro/micro-cosm. Hence rather than "goddunnit" such advocates often rely on the very much similar "''nless science do sumtin bout it ... en I knows deys workin onnit"

 

[spidergoat]

...

Empiricism, due to the very nature it arrives at conclusions or draws from information, simply doesn't have the scope to lend authority to explicit causes. IOW, it relies on a sort of metonymic reasoning that never approaches the holistic, much like division by 2 of a number with value never arrives at zero.

IOW empiricism can never hope to invalidate the notion of god simply because whatever it claims to know is shrouded in mystery at either end of the macro/micro-cosm. Hence rather than "goddunnit" such advocates often rely on the very much similar "''nless science do sumtin bout it ... en I knows deys workin onnit"

Depends which notion of God we are talking about.

 

[elte]

Basically, you're saying "Some people, especially in the past, didn't know how things work, so in their ignorance, they invented the convenient 'God did it'."

Do you have any evidence of that, or is this just your projection, conjecture?

It's as sure as extrapolation, which is pretty sure, but not certain. As we go back in time, more and more stuff that we now understand is from natural causes was attributed to God or gods.

I reserve the word ignorance for intentional ignoring of information, which is hard to say unless one is actually there. I would use the phrase -didn't know-.

 

[elte]

I don't think you understand.

Empiricism, due to the very nature it arrives at conclusions or draws from information, simply doesn't have the scope to lend authority to explicit causes. IOW, it relies on a sort of metonymic reasoning that never approaches the holistic, much like division by 2 of a number with value never arrives at zero.

IOW empiricism can never hope to invalidate the notion of god simply because whatever it claims to know is shrouded in mystery at either end of the macro/micro-cosm

Yes, language is a flawed way to transfer thoughts because you didn't understand me. I don't intend to invalidate the concept of god, since I'm basically saying that we have do what works to function in life, and if God isn't apparent, describe things the way that is apparent for the sake of practicality.

I actually think I understand what you are saying, however sometimes it's true that I do have doubts about the interpretation of your words. So, thanks for your understanding about that.

I often observe people arguing because they misinterpret others' words and I don't want to do that. I want understanding both ways.

 

[wynn]

It's as sure as extrapolation, which is pretty sure, but not certain. As we go back in time, more and more stuff that we now understand is from natural causes was attributed to God or gods.

Given the usual definitions of "God" (ie. First Cause, Creator, Maintainer and Controller of the Universe, First Being) - how can there be anything that is not to be attributed to God??

 

[lightgigantic]

Depends which notion of God we are talking about.

It doesn't really.

Any entity that has the power to contextualize our perception (even if they are not a prime mover, omnimax god) is well out of reach of whatever we can muster empirically.

Kind of like having an ant on a twig and twisting it around repeatedly so he walks up and down the same 15cm piece of wood all day

 

[wynn]

It doesn't really.

It does, though. If people actually operate with the notion of a demigod when talking about "God," then they are clearly working out of an inferior notion of "God," and one that can be empirically put into question.

 

[rodereve]

Depends which notion of God we are talking about.

I guess start with the universal traits of God - omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience....and I might be missing one lol

can those traits exist? in the natural world, no, but I guess considering God would be supernatural then he gets let off the hook

 

[lightgigantic]

It does, though. If people actually operate with the notion of a demigod when talking about "God," then they are clearly working out of an inferior notion of "God," and one that can be empirically put into question.

even demigods could have the capacity to contextualize our empirical efforts (albeit not in such a complete or powerful manner as an omnimax god).

Even humans can frustrate the empirical efforts of lesser species.

 

[wynn]

even demigods could have the capacity to contextualize our empirical efforts (albeit not in such a complete or powerful manner as an omnimax god).

Exactly. And on this count, atheists are actually correct.

Not rarely, theists present inferior notions of divinity under the guise of full divinity. People are right to be revolted by this.

 

[wellwisher]

This does nothing to suggest that the notion of "trees" are some sort of false projection, etc

Let me give an example of a modern collective projection; tripping out. The shooting at Sandy Hook has made many people lose touch with reality, thinking guns are animated and can shoot people, instead on focusing on the objective reality that any shooting has to do with the operator of a gun and his mental state.

Science can prove guns are not animated. But the trip projection sees walking guns. This projection causes many to collectively look at guns deeper. The discussion is not about illegal guns and crime, which is the vast majority of gun violation. The trip projection is geared against legal owners, who science can show are not the main source of the gun problem. The other way would create a reality check and break the spell.

If the ancients started to project and then trip out, over a tree, they would see also see an irrational connection outside of cause and effect. This might become the talk of the town. They may need to subdue and put that tree in jail so it cannot hurt anyone; stockpile wood. They would see the god of the tree, instead of the god of the guns. They were consciouis of the induction or projection, via the god, while modern people will go into denial, so they can remain unconscious of the projection.

When civilization began the projection trip was progressive; The fire would bring to mind other progressive features; cook, smelt. But in modern times, the trip seem to dumb down. This is connected to differetn parts of the brain being the source of the projector.

 

[wellwisher]

My approach to religions, like mythology, is that this is based on unconscious projection. Since the projection is higher than human; gods, the projector was from the main frame aspects of the brain, in contract to the ego being more like a terminal, who would observe. Modern projection is different since it seems to come from step down firmware in the middle.

 

[elte]

Given the usual definitions of "God" (ie. First Cause, Creator, Maintainer and Controller of the Universe, First Being) - how can there be anything that is not to be attributed to God??

The First Cause and Creator could be considered to have the deistic nature and not be important in our lives.

Considering the other two, Maintainer and Controller, everything being attributed to them makes sense.

 

[wynn]

The First Cause and Creator could be considered to have the deistic nature and not be important in our lives.

Considering the other two, Maintainer and Controller, everything being attributed to them makes sense.

And an entity cannot be the Maintainer and the Controller, unless said entity is also the First Cause.

 

[wynn]

My approach to religions, like mythology, is that this is based on unconscious projection. Since the projection is higher than human; gods, the projector was from the main frame aspects of the brain, in contract to the ego being more like a terminal, who would observe. Modern projection is different since it seems to come from step down firmware in the middle.

When you speak here of projection, do you mean the psychological defense mechanism?

 

[lightgigantic]

Let me give an example of a modern collective projection; tripping out. The shooting at Sandy Hook has made many people lose touch with reality, thinking guns are animated and can shoot people, instead on focusing on the objective reality that any shooting has to do with the operator of a gun and his mental state.

Science can prove guns are not animated. But the trip projection sees walking guns. This projection causes many to collectively look at guns deeper. The discussion is not about illegal guns and crime, which is the vast majority of gun violation. The trip projection is geared against legal owners, who science can show are not the main source of the gun problem. The other way would create a reality check and break the spell.

If the ancients started to project and then trip out, over a tree, they would see also see an irrational connection outside of cause and effect. This might become the talk of the town. They may need to subdue and put that tree in jail so it cannot hurt anyone; stockpile wood. They would see the god of the tree, instead of the god of the guns. They were consciouis of the induction or projection, via the god, while modern people will go into denial, so they can remain unconscious of the projection.

well I would argue that you are projecting and tripping out a bit yourself - the issue is far more complex than this caricature, since aside from mental state and criminal activity, gun related deaths/injuries also accrue (in a statistically apparent manner, btw) from legal owners with no mental/criminal history, particularly in markedly way if the market is saturated with them due to poor regulation (in contrast to the type of restrictions/regulations applied to other high risk OH&S contrivances in this contemporary world).

When civilization began the projection trip was progressive; The fire would bring to mind other progressive features; cook, smelt. But in modern times, the trip seem to dumb down. This is connected to differetn parts of the brain being the source of the projector.

You are simply assuming that everyone else is tripping out with projection and that your view is simply the unbiased revelation of reality.

IOW whatever weaknesses you are ascribing to other people's views are also active in undermining your particular take on a scenario

 

[lightgigantic]

The First Cause and Creator could be considered to have the deistic nature and not be important in our lives.


Considering the other two, Maintainer and Controller, everything being attributed to them makes sense.

what on earth ( ) makes you say that?

 

[spidergoat]

It doesn't really.

Any entity that has the power to contextualize our perception (even if they are not a prime mover, omnimax god) is well out of reach of whatever we can muster empirically.

Kind of like having an ant on a twig and twisting it around repeatedly so he walks up and down the same 15cm piece of wood all day

Without empiricism, any such entities are merely speculative. Not every collection of concepts make sense. The usual definitions of God are non-sensical. Any entity that cannot be detected with empiricism is irrelevant, since it cannot interact with our world in any way that matters (any material way).