Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Kir Komrik on November 19, 2012 at 6:18pm

Hey,

I could say this yet another way:

What I'm trying to get at is what is the more likely source of the belief that Helios is The One, True God?

Of two choices given, which would you pick first:

Confirmation Bias or

the fact that Helios is The One, True God (his chariot did fly across the sky)

Provided the odds of the two choices given are not 0% the question is not malformed in any way.

- kk

Permalink Reply by Simon Paynton on November 19, 2012 at 6:25pm

Kir - yes, I see what you mean.  We're ambiguous, I feel.  What does it actually mean to say The One True God?  The one who pulls the sun across the sky?  Or the one who created the universe?  It would always have to be the latter.  Did the Greeks think that Helios was The One, True God?  Or just the boss of the gods?  Is that the same thing?  I don't believe so. 

Permalink Reply by Kir Komrik on November 19, 2012 at 6:34pm

Hey,

If you think it's ambiguous I can clear it up for you quickly. Your objection seems to be that Helios could be a lesser god and that there could exist some greater god that is the Creator, correct?

- kk

Permalink Reply by Kir Komrik on November 19, 2012 at 6:49pm

Hey,

Kir - yes.  The One True God would have to be the Creator.

Is that your reply to my question? I'm assuming it is. Then it is in fact your objection that is ambiguating the situation. If Helios were a lesser god whose chariot did in fact fly across the sky that means that The One, True God, being the Creator, must have, by definition, created him. If that is the case, Helios is an agent of the One True God and you're just adding one layer of indirection. And I've already stated that I'm okay with multiple gods being lumped together with The One, True God. This doesn't change the logic at all and there is nothing ambiguous about it.

- kk

 

Permalink Reply by Simon Paynton on November 19, 2012 at 6:52pm

Then doesn't that mean that any god is The One, True God?  Defeating the point of your question? 

Permalink Reply by Kir Komrik on November 19, 2012 at 6:59pm

Hey,

Quote:

"Then doesn't that mean that any god is The One, True God?  Defeating the point of your question?"

Of course not. We don't know how many of these gods are lumped together. You can have a Creator who chooses to create 1 or 100 other gods. That doesn't help us at all.

There can still be imposters, and that is what matters.

You're over-analyzing the question, imo.

- kk

Permalink Reply by Simon Paynton on November 19, 2012 at 6:41pm

Kir - yes.  The One True God would have to be the Creator. 

Permalink Reply by Simon Paynton on November 19, 2012 at 6:45pm

Actually - wait.  I'm contradicting my true beliefs and what I said earlier.  The One True God is the Source of All Goodness, and this is different from the Creator.  In conventional theology, I'm talking about God's love or Jesus' message. 

Permalink Reply by Kir Komrik on November 19, 2012 at 6:53pm

Hah, lol, no, can't change your answer

You're just dancing and don't realize it. This is nothing more than the polytheistic condition I mentioned earlier; having several gods in a group, some greater, some lesser, doesn't change anything.

- kk

Permalink Reply by Kir Komrik on November 19, 2012 at 6:56pm

Hey,

The One True God is the Source of All Goodness

btw, how do I know that? You're ascribing qualities to The One, True God that we haven't even talked about yet.

- kk

Permalink Reply by Kir Komrik on November 19, 2012 at 6:25pm

Hey,

Now, the same could be said for Agenticity:

What I'm trying to get at is what is the more likely source of the belief that Utnapishtim is The One, True God?

Of two choices given, which would you pick first:

Agenticity or

the fact that Utnapishtim is The One, True God (he really did cause that flood)

Provided the odds of the two choices given are not 0% the question is not malformed in any way.

- kk

Permalink Reply by Simon Paynton on November 19, 2012 at 6:18pm

Question 3: 

If

"The gods even were afraid of the storm;

they retreated and took refuge in the heaven of Anu.

There the gods crouched down like dogs, on the inclosure of heaven they sat cowering."

- then they cannot be the One True God.  

Again, I think we're confused over whether Agenticity means seeing God's purpose where there is none, or God's purpose really existing.  (Now I can't stop thinking of purple and porpoises.  See what you've done.)  

I feel you may be guilty of a fallacy, which lurks within this ambiguity.  Just because people sometimes see God's purpose where there is none - doesn't mean that it's never there. 

It's also true that we tend to attribute conscious design onto real-live people, in a paranoid way, when they are innocent.  Like you said, this is nearly always cleared up when we actually communicate with them. 

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 7
• 8
• 9
• 10
• 11
• …
• 16
• Next ›
• Page