If atheists get accused of taking verses out of context, how do we know fundamentalists making those accusations aren’t doing the same as well?

[Wrangler]

That tells logical people two things:

1. Humans are going through a phase of evolution

Logical people would question evolution, let alone phases of something that does not exist.

 

[Wrangler]

It really is quite remarkable the number of vague and abstract things you consider to be proof of god.

Likewise, it is really quite remarkable the number of specific and repeatable things you consider to NOT be proof of god.

 

[FlySwatter]

Logical people would question evolution, let alone phases of something that does not exist.

Logical people would question EVERYTHING.

Evolution is clearly truth. So much so that the vast majority of scientists and critical thinkers accept it. Even many religious figures do because they have open minds and can comprehend that evolution might be part of god's plan and work.

 

[FlySwatter]

Likewise, it is really quite remarkable the number of specific and repeatable things you consider to NOT be proof of god.

Such as . . .

 

[the.reverent.atheist]

Wow! Your notion of experience is not bound. "Color" is a perception. Math is a concept. Not the same is it?

Your reply implies the notion of subjective meaning of words. There is conception and perception. Experience is perception, what you perceive through your senses. Conception is the process of your mind, integrating perceptions. Experience and conception, therefore are not the same.

If one wants to play words games, one could say they experienced thinking about math but that is not the same thing at all as perceiving it outside the processes of ones mind. You can experience stubbing your toe on a rock but you cannot experience stubbing your toe on pi.

Would you say that a person can experience emotions-- like love? It's not something physical like a rock. I think that to say that love is something that people are able to experience is a perfectly natural usage. Same goes for dreams. Most people would be perfectly comfortable with the notion that it is possible to experience a dream. To me the word experience encompasses physical sensations, emotions, anything that can be contemplated-- like mathematics, or art, or dreams... Anything that passes however fleetingly through the mind, regardless of whether it originates from a direct physical sensation or from a mere flight of the imagination.

When I think about a mathematical notion like, say, the Four Color Map Theorem I usually try to picture it in my mind. That act is essentially one of trying to reproduce a mental image of something that can't actually be sensed. As for the number pi, I often picture it as a point on the number line. My personal approach to mathematics is very visual. But that's just me.

If you're that stuck on the word "experience," I'm willing to entertain other substitutes. Suggestions?

 

[the.reverent.atheist]

Thanks for your comments and for bringing your Genesis interpretations to the table. I had not heard your interpretation of pre-existing matter before so that was something learned for me too.

{Remainder deleted to save room.}

Wonderful questions! I'll take them one at a time.

0. If god didn't create absolutely everything, does that necessarily mean that he/she is not omnipotent?

That is such an interesting question. In the case of the version of the creation story as narrated in the NSRVue, we're only told about the state of the Chaos at the time that Yahweh began the act of creation. We're not told about how the Chaos was created, or by whom. So perhaps the Chaos just always existed, and after some period of time God decided he was bored with the Chaos and decided to create something more interesting. But it makes one wonder how the Chaos was originally created. If the Chaos was created by another set of beings prior to the time of the God of the Bible, then I think it's legitimate to wonder if the first set of beings had powers that were superior to those of God, and that God did not create the Chaos because he simply didn't have the power to do so. More on this possibility in what follows.

But another possibility is that the Chaos just always existed, perhaps prior to the time of the existence of God, and that God simply used the existing materials to fashion his universe. That interpretation doesn't necessarily imply that God is not omnipotent.

So I would have to say that the answer to your question is no.

1. Is it not possible for there to be more than one omnipotent being?

Following is a quotation from the Gnostic work "On the Origin Of The World," as rendered in English as part of the Nag Hamadi Library, Copyright 1977, E.J. Brill. (NOTE: I cite this passage not because I believe it to be true, but rather to demonstrate that there were many other perspectives on the creation of the world brewing at the time.)

Since everyone-- the gods of the world and men-- says that nothing has existed prior to Chaos, I shall demonstrate that [they] all erred, since they do not know the [structure] of Chaos and its root. Here [is the] demonstration:

If it is [agreed by] all men concerning [Chaos] that it is a darkness, then it is something derived from a shadow. It was called darkness.​

But the shadow is something derived from a work existing from the beginning.​

So it is obvious that it (the first work) existed before Chaos came into being, which followed after the first work.​

Now let us enter into the truth, but also into the first work from whence Chaos came; and in this way the demonstration of truth will appear.
After the nature of the immortals was completed out of the boundless one, then a likeness called "Sophia" flowed out of Pistis.

And from there the story goes on to describe all manner of wondrous beings who prepared the way for the creation of Chaos. So there you have a tradition which clearly supports the existence of multiple beings who existed before the time of Yahweh in the Bible. Later, of course, Gnosticism was rejected by Christianity as heresy, so these ideas were by no means universally held.

There is also another Gnostic tradition concerning the god Yaldabaoth, who is described as an evil blind god who thought he was the real god. Here's short excerpt from the Hypostasis of the Archons:

And Zoe (Life), the daughter of Pistis Sophia, cried out and said to him, 'You are mistaken, Sakla!'-- for which the alternate name is Yaltabaoth. She breathed into his face, and her breath became a fiery angel for her; and that angel bound Yaldabaoth and cast him down into Tartaros below the Abyss.
...
"Now when Yaldabaoth saw him in this great splendor and at this height, he envied him; and the envy became an androgynous product; and this was the origin of Envy. And Envy engendered Death; and Death engendered his offspring and gave each of them charge of its heaven; and all the heavens of Chaos became full of their multitudes."

It's pretty confusing, but the gist seems to be that Yaldabaoth/Yaltabaoth thought he was a powerful being but was smacked down by Pistis Sophia, and his personal envy of others of the then existing spirits generated Envy, which in turn generated Death, which in turn infected the Chaos. And apparently all of this must have happened before the beginning of the creation narrative of the Bible.

So back to your question-- is it possible for there to be more than one omnipotent god? The word "omnipotent" implies the power to do anything, so it would appear to support the ability to create other omnipotent gods, just as you said. And would an omnipotent god have the ability to create another god that has the power to destroy the original god? Hmmm... seems pretty likely that would be a bad move for the original god.

On the other hand the notion of monotheism insists that there is only one god. That would seem to imply that the one god does not have the ability to create other omnipotent gods, in which case that one god is not really omnipotent. Or perhaps there is an additional necessary assumption about a single omnipotent god-- namely that he/she must necessarily be wise enough to avoid creating another omnipotent god, since that would most likely not end well for either of the gods.

The Russell Paradox concerned the set of all sets that are not members of themselves. You may have heard of this cast as a question about the barber who only shaves the faces of those who do not shave themselves. Question: Does the barber shave himself? Set theory had to adopt a rule to prevent such self-referential definitions of sets. It would seem that to make the concept of an omnipotent being work, there must be an additional constraint similar to that which was adopted to rule out the Russell Paradox.

The whole thing makes my head hurt. So I think it's easiest to just assume that the notion of a truly omnipotent god-- one that can create other equally powerful gods-- is just not plausible.

2. If there does exist an omnipotent entity then by definition it has the ability to destroy itself, to cease to be

Yes, clearly. It would be totally possible for such a being to decide that he/she is sick of it all and no longer wishes to live.

3. If there did exist multiple gods and if they displayed the envious, jealous traits that we read about god in the OT then would they not all vie for contention in regards to humans?

The God of the Bible is a jealous god: You shall have no other gods before me.

One would suppose that other gods who have the same jealous attitudes of God would do everything they could to get a corner on the adoration of the human masses. So yes-- it seems that such a circumstance would inevitably lead to conflict, if not all out war, between the gods. Not good.

 

[FlySwatter]

Wonderful questions! I'll take them one at a time.

0. If god didn't create absolutely everything, does that necessarily mean that he/she is not omnipotent?

That is such an interesting question. In the case of the version of the creation story as narrated in the NSRVue, we're only told about the state of the Chaos at the time that Yahweh began the act of creation. We're not told about how the Chaos was created, or by whom. So perhaps the Chaos just always existed, and after some period of time God decided he was bored with the Chaos and decided to create something more interesting. But it makes one wonder how the Chaos was originally created. If the Chaos was created by another set of beings prior to the time of the God of the Bible, then I think it's legitimate to wonder if the first set of beings had powers that were superior to those of God, and that God did not create the Chaos because he simply didn't have the power to do so. More on this possibility in what follows.

But another possibility is that the Chaos just always existed, perhaps prior to the time of the existence of God, and that God simply used the existing materials to fashion his universe. That interpretation doesn't necessarily imply that God is not omnipotent.

So I would have to say that the answer to your question is no.

1. Is it not possible for there to be more than one omnipotent being?

Following is a quotation from the Gnostic work "On the Origin Of The World," as rendered in English as part of the Nag Hamadi Library, Copyright 1977, E.J. Brill. (NOTE: I cite this passage not because I believe it to be true, but rather to demonstrate that there were many other perspectives on the creation of the world brewing at the time.)



And from there the story goes on to describe all manner of wondrous beings who prepared the way for the creation of Chaos. So there you have a tradition which clearly supports the existence of multiple beings who existed before the time of Yahweh in the Bible. Later, of course, Gnosticism was rejected by Christianity as heresy, so these ideas were by no means universally held.

There is also another Gnostic tradition concerning the god Yaldabaoth, who is described as an evil blind god who thought he was the real god. Here's short excerpt from the Hypostasis of the Archons:



It's pretty confusing, but the gist seems to be that Yaldabaoth/Yaltabaoth thought he was a powerful being but was smacked down by Pistis Sophia, and his personal envy of others of the then existing spirits generated Envy, which in turn generated Death, which in turn infected the Chaos. And apparently all of this must have happened before the beginning of the creation narrative of the Bible.

So back to your question-- is it possible for there to be more than one omnipotent god? The word "omnipotent" implies the power to do anything, so it would appear to support the ability to create other omnipotent gods, just as you said. And would an omnipotent god have the ability to create another god that has the power to destroy the original god? Hmmm... seems pretty likely that would be a bad move for the original god.

On the other hand the notion of monotheism insists that there is only one god. That would seem to imply that the one god does not have the ability to create other omnipotent gods, in which case that one god is not really omnipotent. Or perhaps there is an additional necessary assumption about a single omnipotent god-- namely that he/she must necessarily be wise enough to avoid creating another omnipotent god, since that would most likely not end well for either of the gods.

The Russell Paradox concerned the set of all sets that are not members of themselves. You may have heard of this cast as a question about the barber who only shaves the faces of those who do not shave themselves. Question: Does the barber shave himself? Set theory had to adopt a rule to prevent such self-referential definitions of sets. It would seem that to make the concept of an omnipotent being work, there must be an additional constraint similar to that which was adopted to rule out the Russell Paradox.

The whole thing makes my head hurt. So I think it's easiest to just assume that the notion of a truly omnipotent god-- one that can create other equally powerful gods-- is just not plausible.

2. If there does exist an omnipotent entity then by definition it has the ability to destroy itself, to cease to be

Yes, clearly. It would be totally possible for such a being to decide that he/she is sick of it all and no longer wishes to live.

3. If there did exist multiple gods and if they displayed the envious, jealous traits that we read about god in the OT then would they not all vie for contention in regards to humans?

The God of the Bible is a jealous god: You shall have no other gods before me.

One would suppose that other gods who have the same jealous attitudes of God would do everything they could to get a corner on the adoration of the human masses. So yes-- it seems that such a circumstance would inevitably lead to conflict, if not all out war, between the gods. Not good.

Super stuff and I am in agreement

I tend to think that whatever the reality is with god or gods, that wee only have half (if that) of the true picture and as mere mortals are likely being manipulated as always. We probably won't learn the truth until we "die" and even then we might still be manipulated and duped.

 

[Wrangler]

Wow! Your notion of experience is not bound. "Color" is a perception. Math is a concept. Not the same is it?

If you're that stuck on the word "experience," I'm willing to entertain other substitutes. Suggestions?

It's not the word; it's the unbound - and therefore, invalid - concept that I'm "stuck" on. Your use of "experience" lacks Differentia with a closest synonym being existence. I say this because the only alternative frame to it is non-existence.

If you have not experienced X, then it is like a black hole in your philosophy. Of course, you may play the word game of calling thoughts about X also an experience with X. In my view, this needs to be Differentiated.

Just to give a non-controversial application of a proper definition, which includes both a genus (integration, what it is connected with) and a Differentia (differential, how it is different that everything else that exists) is the notion of a chair.

Genus: a piece of furniture, often part of a set, such as couch, love seat, foot stool and accessories, including end and coffee tables.

Differentia: a piece of furniture primarily used for one person to sit.

So, it seems you me that you use experience to mean everything with no Differentia (other than non-existence). Am I missing something?

 

[Wrangler]

Evolution is clearly truth.

Evolution were true there would exist at least a single example of an animal evolving into another kind, like a horse to a bird, dog to a fish, bat to a worm.

The complete lack of evidence does not bother Atheists when it comes to their core beliefs.

 

[Wrangler]

Such as . . .

The billions of witnesses.

 

[the.reverent.atheist]

It's not the word; it's the unbound - and therefore, invalid - concept that I'm "stuck" on. Your use of "experience" lacks Differentia with a closest synonym being existence. I say this because the only alternative frame to it is non-existence.

If you have not experienced X, then it is like a black hole in your philosophy. Of course, you may play the word game of calling thoughts about X also an experience with X. In my view, this needs to be Differentiated.

Just to give a non-controversial application of a proper definition, which includes both a genus (integration, what it is connected with) and a Differentia (differential, how it is different that everything else that exists) is the notion of a chair.

Genus: a piece of furniture, often part of a set, such as couch, love seat, foot stool and accessories, including end and coffee tables.

Differentia: a piece of furniture primarily used for one person to sit.

So, it seems you me that you use experience to mean everything with no Differentia (other than non-existence). Am I missing something?

I'm in the camp of Alfred North Whitehead who is known for having opposed all "bifurcations" of reality. He was reacting against the Cartesian dichotomy between that which is physical and that which is mental. In Whitehead's view all mental and physical "things" are intertwined. A chair, for example, has properties such as mass, size, shape, etc. that emotions and dreams manifestly do not have. But to Whitehead physical and mental "things" are all "things" that the mind can experience, though with different characteristics and perceived attributes.

But I'll take your challenge and apply your categories of genus and differentia to both mood and dreams, just to illustrate how a philosopher like Whitehead would have responded to your perspective.

Love: Its genus is that it is a mood, often part of a complex of moods, that are relevant to the interactions between separate individuals.
Differentia: It is a form of attraction that can be the basis for a deep bond between individuals.

Dream: Its genus is that of a wisp of thought, a flight of fancy that is often one of a series which occur to a sleeping individual.
Differentia: It is a thought employed by the sleeping brain to revisit unresolved issues in the events of the day.

Process And Reality by Whitehead does a great job of explaining his philosophy. And his philosophy has no correlate of your categories of Genus and Differentia.

Maybe you're upset because you think love and dreams don't exist. That seems to be the thrust of your comments about non-existence. My response (and Whitehead's) would be that they are every bit as real as are tables, chairs, rocks, trees, stars... Maybe you're thinking that the only things that exist are those which we can touch or taste or see or hear. But people can definitely see dreams-- happens all the time. In my own case, I dream in technicolor, and I can often recall dreams with tremendous vividness. There have even been occasions when I have kicked with my legs in reaction to something I was dreaming about. Seems pretty real.

What about virtual particles? Those are particles that are created and destroyed before they can be detected by any sense method. Do they exist? Quantum mechanics says they do. So I think that settles it. Virtual particles that cannot be directly sensed even in principle are part of reality. And therefore a "thing" doesn't have to be directly perceivable to be real.

 

[FlySwatter]

Evolution were true there would exist at least a single example of an animal evolving into another kind, like a horse to a bird, dog to a fish, bat to a worm.

I see you don't really understand evolution . . . hey ho

Pentadactyl Limb

Pentadactly Limb

"The evolution of this limb is proof that the species within the categories mentioned with the limb all derived from a common ancestor. The bone structure of the pentadactyl limb is very similar in many species, but it had evolved in many different ways allowing the animal to adapt to their environment in order to increase the chance of survival. Charles Darwin touched upon this theory in his research, stating that it was curious that a horse’s leg or a bat wing could have bone structures that are similar yet the animal itself be so different."

The pentadactyl limb - Evolution - Edexcel - GCSE Biology (Single Science) Revision - Edexcel - BBC Bitesize

Revise Darwin’s and Wallace’s theory of evolution, natural selection, genetic modification and the Linnaean system of classification.

www.bbc.co.uk

Evolution: Library: Tetrapod Limbs

 

[Illuminator]

God May Create Through Any Means—Including Evolution

In this article I want to dissolve the apparent conflict between the theory of evolution, the existence of God, and the creation accounts in Genesis. Many peopl...

www.catholic.com

 

[Wrangler]

Maybe you're upset because you think love and dreams don't exist.

No. My response is not emotional but intellectual. There simply is a difference between experiencing X with merely having thoughts about X.

Your philosophy deems them both experiences with no apparent Differentia. Therefore, in application, you cannot identify a person who is an ACTUAL eye witness to an event from one who merely thought about the event.

As I see it, this is the danger of a world view, a philosophy that frames all in terms of experience; it fails to properly differentiate perception with conception.

 

[the.reverent.atheist]

No. My response is not emotional but intellectual. There simply is a difference between experiencing X with merely having thoughts about X.

Your philosophy deems them both experiences with no apparent Differentia. Therefore, in application, you cannot identify a person who is an ACTUAL eye witness to an event from one who merely thought about the event.

As I see it, this is the danger of a world view, a philosophy that frames all in terms of experience; it fails to properly differentiate perception with conception.

Some thoughts are directly relatable to a person's sense perceptions and some are not. The state of present day technology is such that the association of sense perceptions to thoughts can, in some cases, be measured with physical instruments. So if you wish to distinguish a category of thoughts that are directly relatable to sense perceptions from another category of those that are not, I certainly have no problem with that. And I don't think Whitehead would have had a problem either.

The fact is that all raw sense perceptions ultimately get translated into something the brain can recognize and deal with. The human retina, for example, has about 7 million cones and between 75 and 150 million rods. BUT there are only about one million fibers in the optic nerve. That's because a layer of cells, known as ganglion cells, pre-processes the actual raw data of the photons to deliver those data to the occipital lobe in a form that the brain can quickly assemble into a three dimensional image. To a great extant that mental image is a construct that is built by the physiology of the human eye and its associated components. There are many well-known optical illusions that can trick the human eye into seeing things in the field of view that are contrary to independently measurable fact. We should also mention that there are many differences between individuals as regards the perception of raw sense data. When my wife drinks Carménère wine, for example, she tastes green peppers-- and I absolutely do not. Some people will detect a very grassy scent in their urine after eating asparagus, and others will not. Some people see colors differently from the norm, a condition known as "color blindness." Everything you "perceive" is a construct of the human body's intricate and interconnected systems.

 

[the.reverent.atheist]

God May Create Through Any Means—Including Evolution

In this article I want to dissolve the apparent conflict between the theory of evolution, the existence of God, and the creation accounts in Genesis. Many peopl...

www.catholic.com

I certainly have no problem with the idea that a theist could ascribe to God the ability to create new forms of life via the mechanisms of evolution. I'm not attempting to dissuade anyone from believing in the reality of a deity.

Non-Christian followers of this forum should note that we have on this thread two Christians who profoundly disagree about the nature and boundaries of science. @Illuminator has said specifically that religion and science are absolutely compatible, since both come directly from God. But @Wrangler seems to think that evolution in particular is some sort of spawn of the devil. One would suppose that if Christian beliefs were all derived directly from God, then all Christians would share a common philosophy-- especially as regards something as important to our understanding of the world as science. But the fact is that Christians have long had disagreements among themselves about all manner of theological and philosophical issues.

 

[FlySwatter]

There simply is a difference between experiencing X with merely having thoughts about X.

All experiences involve thought. All experience is after all just a collection of electrical signals going through the brain sent by various sensors. The brain decodes the signals and generates thought.

 

[Wrangler]

Maybe you're thinking that the only things that exist are those which we can touch or taste or see or hear.

Again no. Here again , you seem to be equating existence to experience.

 

[Wrangler]

I see you don't really understand evolution

No, I really do understand evolution and like many scientists, I pontificated it for decades - until I educated myself by entertaining fact-based criticism. See Is Genesis Real?

 

[Wrangler]

Some thoughts are directly relatable to a person's sense perceptions and some are not.

That’s Differentia!

Also, you pivoted from experience to thoughts.