Can some Christian please tell me what "original sin" is currently taken to mean?
Can some Christian please tell me what "original sin" is currently taken to mean?
I thought those who believe in that daft concept, still think naughty Eve was to blame for encouraging Adam to eat the forbidden fruit.
Christianity developed the notion of original sin. Christianity is all about keep the issue of sin on the table of God's justice. Religion will take care of that original sin for people, but that concept was added to the bible.
So extreme are the psalmist’s guilt feeling that he sees himself as sinful even before birth.
Evil is a product of human behavior, not a principal inherent in the cosmos. It is the power of moral choice alone, that is Yahweh like and having that good and bad knowledge is no guarantee that one will choose or incline towards the good. The very action that brought Adam and Eve a Yahweh like awareness of their mortal autonomy, was an action that was taken in opposition to Yahweh.
Yahweh knows that, that human beings will become like Yahweh, knowing good and bad; it’s one of the things about Yahweh, he knows good and bad, and has chosen the good. Human beings, and only human beings are the potential source of evil, responsibility for evil will lie in the hands of human beings. Evil is represented not as a physical reality, it’s not built into the structure of Eden, evil is a condition of human existence, and to assert that evil stems from human behavior.
Christianity developed the notion of human behavior, not a principal inherent in the hands of Eden, evil responsibility for evil will lie in the cosmos. It is represented not as a condition of God's justice. Religion will become like awareness of Eden, evil is a product of human beings. Evil is a Yahweh like and having that evil stems from human behavior Christianity is all about Yahweh, he knows good and bad; it’s one of the issue of human beings. Evil is represented not built into the power of human behavior, not as a Yahweh like and having that one will lie in the hands of the things about Yahweh, he sees himself as sinful even before birth. Evil is a product of sin on the good. The very action that was added to the bible. So extreme are the psalmist’s guilt feeling that human beings and only human beings will lie in opposition to Yahweh. Yahweh he knows good and only human existence, and bad, and only human beings will lie in the cosmos. It is Yahweh like awareness of God's justice. Religion will take care of their mortal autonomy, was added to Yahweh. Yahweh like and bad, and to assert that human beings will become like and having that that human ...http://www.critters.org/bonsai/index.cgi
I asked the question, Roses, because I am not sure what the modern Christian concept is.
NN's answer is totally unclear, but I'm not sure that he is a Christian.
Christianity developed the notion of human behavior, not a principal inherent in the hands of Eden, evil responsibility for evil will lie in the cosmos. It is represented not as a condition of God's justice. Religion will become like awareness of Eden, evil is a product of human beings. Evil is a Yahweh like and having that evil stems from human behavior Christianity is all about Yahweh, he knows good and bad; it’s one of the issue of human beings. Evil is represented not built into the power of human behavior, not as a Yahweh like and having that one will lie in the hands of the things about Yahweh, he sees himself as sinful even before birth. Evil is a product of sin on the good. The very action that was added to the bible. So extreme are the psalmist’s guilt feeling that human beings and only human beings will lie in opposition to Yahweh. Yahweh he knows good and only human existence, and bad, and only human beings will lie in the cosmos. It is Yahweh like awareness of God's justice. Religion will take care of their mortal autonomy, was added to Yahweh. Yahweh like and bad, and to assert that human beings will become like and having that that human ...http://www.critters.org/bonsai/index.cgi
I was under the impression moderate non Biblical literalists didn't believe in the concept of original sin, whilst the fundies believed it was all the fault of A&E disobeying god by eating the forbidden fruit.
I asked the question, Roses, because I am not sure what the modern Christian concept is.
NN's answer is totally unclear, but I'm not sure that he is a Christian.
Can some Christian please tell me what "original sin" is currently taken to mean?
Can some Christian please tell me what "original sin" is currently taken to mean?Our tendency to rebel against God's authority and set ourselves up as our own masters.
Len,
Though they cannot demonstrate it to be true, Christians think there to be something they call "God".
They also think this "God" to be be pretty terrific, and concerned not to allow bad things to happen and to make everyone happy (well I say everyone, but they also think that "He" has a bit of a hissy fit when some people back the wrong horse by choosing another god, but anyways...).
Clearly though bad things do happen and lots of people are not happy at all. What then to do as what's observably true contradicts the nursery story? Easy peasy - just make the bad stuff all our fault!
Now this needed a story of some kind, so the early authors of this stuff dreamt up "Adam" and "Eve" (an iron-age notion that modern evolutionary theory has long-since fundamentally blown out of the water) and decided that they broke one of "God's" rules, so in exchange this "God" called their behaviour "original sin" and punished them for it by giving brain cancer to babies thousands of years later.
Just to complete the job of knife-twisting, Christians have also got it into their heads that to be forgiven for this offence that someone else entirely committed long ago and far away we need to be "redeemed", redemption entailing all sorts of dehumanising obeisances to this "God" of theirs.
It's morally disgusting and as mad as a monkey on a tricycle carrying a box of frogs I know, but there it is nonetheless. There really are people alive now who we entrust to drive cars and to lay turf the right way up who actually believe this stuff, however bewildering their credulity is for the rest of us.
Hope that helps ;)
Blue, thanks for the macabre story, :)
I'm still hoping that some Christians will answer me.
Our tendency to rebel against God's authority and set ourselves up as our own masters.
Somebody has to do the job ;)Which job?
Our tendency to rebel against God's authority and set ourselves up as our own masters.
Thank you, Spud. Can you tell me where in the Bible this explanation occurs, and why it is given the name of "original sin"?Watcha Len. It's in Genesis 3.
Watcha Len. It's in Genesis 3.
Religion started at the Tower of Babel. Satan was up to something else back them days. Look at what Satan did with Cain.
What's the difference between a "what's the difference" joke and a rhetorical question?Yes?
Yes?
Having read it again, I was struck by the dreadful, over the top, unjust punishment meted out. Thank goodness we humans are not so vindictive.Well either we died or we lived for ever with the sinful nature. :(
Can some Christian please tell me what "original sin" is currently taken to mean?
Well either we died or we lived for ever with the sinful nature. :(
Spiritually....uniting forces are considered 'Good' and separating forces are considered 'bad'. In that sense...gravity is good and Dark Energy is bad. Light is good and darkness is bad.
Original Sin probably refers to the initial forces that separated the individual souls from the Universal Soul. After this 'original sin', we are now in the process of uniting back with the Universal Soul which is what the development process is all about. This is why a universal vision is considered as 'good' and an ego centric view is considered as 'bad'. An integrating, uniting view is considered as good and a separating, discriminating view is considered as bad.
I thought that "original sin" referred to a doctrine that all babies born were considered to have sin in them at birth, or they were born sinners. Thus "original"
I thought that "original sin" referred to a doctrine that all babies born were considered to have sin in them at birth, or they were born sinners. Thus "original"
Universal and individual souls? What does that mean?
In Spirituality (I am not talking from a purely Christian perspective), there is said to be a Universal Spirit which forms the substratum of the world. It is perhaps equal to the Common Consciousness of Jung.
Individual spirits (all of us) are believed to have separated from the Universal Spirit like water evaporates from the ocean. We are now in the process of rejoining the Universal Spirit like rivers flowing back into the ocean.
This belief is the foundation of all spirituality.
The initial separation is called the Fall or the Original Sin. The forces that caused the separation are considered as 'evil' and the forces making us rejoin the Universal spirit are considered as 'good'.
Since every person born in the world is born only because he is separated from the Universal Spirit (otherwise he wouldn't be born here) it is said that every baby is born with the Original Sin.
In Spirituality (I am not talking from a purely Christian perspective), there is said to be a Universal Spirit which forms the substratum of the world. It is perhaps equal to the Common Consciousness of Jung.
Individual spirits (all of us) are believed to have separated from the Universal Spirit like water evaporates from the ocean. We are now in the process of rejoining the Universal Spirit like rivers flowing back into the ocean.
This belief is the foundation of all spirituality.
The initial separation is called the Fall or the Original Sin. The forces that caused the separation are considered as 'evil' and the forces making us rejoin the Universal spirit are considered as 'good'.
Since every person born in the world is born only because he is separated from the Universal Spirit (otherwise he wouldn't be born here) it is said that every baby is born with the Original Sin.
Well said. That is what religion teaches. That is how religion hook people into their religions. Religion has a way of taking care of that original sin, hogwash. Ministers of righteousness have a hay-day with that original sin.
NN
Will you please decide which horse you are riding.
Your sudden change of direction is reminiscent of the Super Troll.
Hi Len,
My take on original sin.
Mankind as a species suffered a fall in the eyes of God, caused by the temptation of the fallen angel Lucifer, now known as Satan. A consequence of this fall is that we are very much under the power of Satan. God has provided an escape from Satan's power through our redeemer and saviour Jesus Christ.
So we need to recognise that original sin makes us vulnerable to Satan's power, and to realise that we have Jesus as our Saviour.
Hi Len,
My take on original sin.
Mankind as a species suffered a fall in the eyes of God, caused by the temptation of the fallen angel Lucifer, now known as Satan. A consequence of this fall is that we are very much under the power of Satan. God has provided an escape from Satan's power through our redeemer and saviour Jesus Christ.
So we need to recognise that original sin makes us vulnerable to Satan's power, and to realise that we have Jesus as our Saviour.
Well my post #20 is my opinion of that take on it.
To punish the whole of humanity for a 'sin' they didn't commit is the most unjust thing I've ever heard.
Look at the values you have. From your youth you were molded so to speak about moral choices of good and bad. You might have fought in WW2, what can someone say to that. Your values are you, and to add the King or Queen of England into the mix. No, you have your values, but along comes religion. Religion whats to question your values, was religion with you during WW2 or was something else.
Hmm! Religion to soldiers in WW2. My take on that is the same as the late great Spike Milligan who stated that the closest any soldier came to religion was when he screamed JEEEESUS FUUUUUUUUUUUKING CHRIIIIST when he dropped a 25 pounder shell on his toes.
For as in Adam all died so in Christ all shall live.
Original sin? Reminds me of a Eurythmics song.
It's almost a moot point since we have plenty sins of our own.
Well my post #20 is my opinion of that take on it.But Jesus came to save us, not to punish us.
To punish the whole of humanity for a 'sin' they didn't commit is the most unjust thing I've ever heard.
But Jesus came to save us, not to punish us.
God did for this age, what the human race could never do on their own. Reconciliation, but does that mean the whole world is save? No!
not a Universalist btw just quoting Paul
But Jesus came to save us, not to punish us.
But Jesus came to save us, not to punish us.
Good grief! Who dreamed up all this stuff?
Leonard,
Ha Ha! You have been reacting with the same astonishment every time I have written about this....over the years!
You don't have to agree with what I write.... but at least you could try to take in and understand the concepts that I am writing about. How long can you be surprised?! LOL!
Well my post #20 is my opinion of that take on it.
To punish the whole of humanity for a 'sin' they didn't commit is the most unjust thing I've ever heard.
Didn't commit? Are you saying that it wasn't a sin to eat the forbidden fruit?
Didn't commit? Are you saying that it wasn't a sin to eat the forbidden fruit?
Of course it wasn't, sticking two fingers up to a deity playing silly games with humanity would have been a good deed if the myth had any credibility.In what way was the deity playing silly games with Adam and Eve?
I didn't eat any forbidden fruit.And I didn't eat two forbidden yum yums today, but we have all done something wrong. Genesis 4:7 shows how after they were driven out of the garden, temptation took on other forms.
And I didn't eat two forbidden yum yums today, but we have all done something wrong. Genesis 4:7 shows how after they were driven out of the garden, temptation took on other forms.
And I didn't eat two forbidden yum yums today, but we have all done something wrong. Genesis 4:7 shows how after they were driven out of the garden, temptation took on other forms.
Didn't commit? Are you saying that it wasn't a sin to eat the forbidden fruit? Did you see message 25, haven't had your response yet.
Well either we died or we lived for ever with the sinful nature. :(
Religion started at the Tower of Babel. Satan was up to something else back them days. Look at what Satan did with Cain.
Clearly though bad things do happen and lots of people are not happy at all. What then to do as what's observably true contradicts the nursery story? Easy peasy - just make the bad stuff all our fault!
Now this needed a story of some kind, so the early authors of this stuff dreamt up "Adam" and "Eve" (an iron-age notion that modern evolutionary theory has long-since fundamentally blown out of the water) and decided that they broke one of "God's" rules, so in exchange this "God" called their behaviour "original sin" and punished them for it by giving brain cancer to babies thousands of years later.
Original Sin probably refers to the initial forces that separated the individual souls from the Universal Soul. After this 'original sin', we are now in the process of uniting back with the Universal Soul which is what the development process is all about. This is why a universal vision is considered as 'good' and an ego centric view is considered as 'bad'. An integrating, uniting view is considered as good and a separating, discriminating view is considered as bad.
The Christ was created to save us from the likes of NN and the Sass.
Jesus thought he was saving the Jews...
If we've all done something wrong - that's a design flaw.Interesting point. It does say Adam and Eve were innocent when first created though. Also we are told that Jesus was innocent.
Your daft deity's fault.
Interesting point. It does say Adam and Eve were innocent when first created though. Also we are told that Jesus was innocent.
Interesting point. It does say Adam and Eve were innocent when first created though. Also we are told that Jesus was innocent.
Interesting point. It does say Adam and Eve were innocent when first created though. Also we are told that Jesus was innocent.
Dear Dickie,
The story of, the myth of Job is older than the Adam and Eve story/myth, both are there to make you think, from the story of Job I get, shit happens, from the Adam and Eve story, turning your back on God, thinking that we know better than God, maybe that is original sin, but the purpose of myth is to make us think, what happened to Adam and Eve happens today, what happened to poor old Job happens today.
And before old Horsethorn jumps on my neck ( again ) all Myths from all religions are there to make us think.
Gonnagle.
Save us from what, the evil god?No ourselves. Our selves which are buttressed against public exposure of our basic id motivations and the excesses of the ego by civilisation and laws etc. Have you never seen Forbidden planet?
Dear Dickie,
The story of, the myth of Job is older than the Adam and Eve story/myth, both are there to make you think, from the story of Job I get, shit happens, from the Adam and Eve story, turning your back on God, thinking that we know better than God, maybe that is original sin, but the purpose of myth is to make us think, what happened to Adam and Eve happens today, what happened to poor old Job happens today.
And before old Horsethorn jumps on my neck ( again ) all Myths from all religions are there to make us think.
Gonnagle.
So you are a student of Tsvetaeva, oh Dicolas (I'm just showing off)?
I always understood the story of Job to have come from an old story, folklore, and that there was more than one ending but when the scriptures were put together, it was decided that the one we know - in which everything was restored to him - was included.
Can some Christian please tell me what "original sin" is currently taken to mean?
The Christ was created to save us from the likes of NN and the Sass.
Jesus thought he was saving the Jews...
15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:
Dear Dickie,
The story of, the myth of Job is older than the Adam and Eve story/myth, both are there to make you think, from the story of Job I get, shit happens, from the Adam and Eve story, turning your back on God, thinking that we know better than God, maybe that is original sin, but the purpose of myth is to make us think, what happened to Adam and Eve happens today, what happened to poor old Job happens today.
And before old Horsethorn jumps on my neck ( again ) all Myths from all religions are there to make us think.
Gonnagle.
As there is no evidence to support the existence of the Biblical god, one can call it what one likes.The universe is evidence since there is cause and effect.
The universe is evidence since there is cause and effect.
The only economically logical solution is therefore the creator and creation model.
The universe is evidence since there is cause and effect.Cause and effect until we get to God (what was God's cause?) at which point cause and effect is promptly shat on.
The only economically logical solution is therefore the creator and creation model.
Cause and effect until we get to God (what was God's cause?) at which point cause and effect is promptly shat on.What else is there beyond cause and effect though.
0/10. Must do better.
Cause and effect until we get to God (what was God's cause?) at which point cause and effect is promptly shat on.I'm afraid God not having a cause is no longer essential to this universe having a creator. God could have a cause and still have created this universe and so cause and effect is back on the table.
0/10. Must do better.
What else is there beyond cause and effect though.
There is one ultimate cause and one ultimate effect namely the universe. For cause and effect to be true, consistently true there is one ultimate effect and one ultimate cause.
Any deviation from this renders effect alone.
What else is there beyond cause and effect though.You posit an uncaused God - you tell me.
I'm afraid God not having a cause is no longer essential to this universe having a creator. God could have a cause and still have created this universe and so cause and effect is back on the table.
Along with an infinite regress....An infinite regress of Gods, yes.
You still haven't justified the idea that a god of any sort is required. Why anthropomorphize the unknown?
Along with an infinite regress....An infinite regress of Gods, yes.
You still haven't justified the idea that a god of any sort is required. Why anthropomorphize the unknown?
An infinite regress of Gods, yes.I do not anthropomorphise the Unknown. You on the other hand wish to render it arbitrarily unconscious.
You now want us to believe there are an infinite number of gods?
As I said: you still haven't justified the idea that a god of any sort is required. Why anthropomorphize the unknown?
I do not anthropomorphise the Unknown.
You on the other hand wish to render it arbitrarily unconscious.
Since you have chosen to discuss an infinite regression of universes and the unknown you have forgone a right to any recourse to what is observed here. Any extension is i'm afraid proposing arbitrary unconsciousness.
I guess it might be conscious but since the only evidence we have of consciousness is associated with complex physical structures (brains) it seems a rather large leap to think that the reason for the universe's existence was conscious.
Since you have chosen to discuss an infinite regression of universes and the unknown...
...you have forgone a right to any recourse to what is observed here.
Any extension is i'm afraid proposing arbitrary unconsciousness.
Further, you using what we observe or don't observe it opens things up for me to talk about one ultimate effect....the universe having an ultimate cause...God.
You are of course philosophically trying to rob Peter to pay Paul.
You suggested an infinite regress - I just pointed it out.A response which seems to want to shut every argument against Dawkin's Best argument down.
Non sequitur.
Which I didn't do. You are, as usual, being dishonest.
You can talk about anything you want but you have yet to provide the slightest hint of a justification for the notion of any god, let alone the this New Christianity of infinite gods that you seem to be proposing.
You wouldn't know philosophy or logic if they smacked you in the face - which they certainly would, if they had fists...
:)
A response which seems to want to shut every argument against Dawkin's Best argument down.
You brought up infinite regression. My line was ''one ultimate cause and one ultimate effect''.
I'm afraid God not having a cause is no longer essential to this universe having a creator. God could have a cause and still have created this universe and so cause and effect is back on the table.
Your problem is of course trying to justify and describe the providence of a thing from what is inside it....and worse, from an arbitrary point of view of what can be found inside it.
We can argue against the universe being so described.
But there are things in the universe which point away from your narrow substrate viewpoint. Namely shared properties which seem to be universal. By your line of argument everything should be based on it's substrate matter and yet these properties are found in billions of places throughout the universe. That leads us onto laws. Laws are therefore not dependent on matter in the same way as matter is dependent on laws. Therefore we observe lawgiving and governance.
Your problem is of course trying to justify and describe the providence of a thing from what is inside it....and worse, from an arbitrary point of view of what can be found inside it....even worse: inside human societies ("lawgiving and governance"): a tiny subset of a tiny subset of what is inside it!
You acknowledged in the word you used 'The unknown' a cause for this universe. All these points made one after the other make a necessary unconscious universal providence look less secure and more an arbitrary commitment by those who for reasons of their own refuse to entertain possible links.
If you want to try that in English...Nothing to see here folks......keep moving.
Nope. You did here:-
Well, no actually. You are the one who is trying to make assertions about what may or may not be outside it. I don't know. I just pointed out that consciousness is very much associated with structures inside - it is you who wants to extrapolate.
There are indeed regularities or 'laws' but here you massively guilty of what you just accused me of:-...even worse: inside human societies ("lawgiving and governance"): a tiny subset of a tiny subset of what is inside it!
Yet again: I haven't made any claim to know what, if anything, caused the universe. It is your task, as the one making the claim for (an infinite number of) gods, to back it up somehow. Further, you need to make the connection with your favourite religion.
Nothing to see here folks......keep moving.
Running away, again. Ho hum.Do you want some more?
::)
Do you want some more?
Of what? I'm still waiting for any hint of an argument for your gods......Sorry, I'm talking about the grounds of belief, You are involved in an argument and yet you don't register the fact.....do you have learning difficulties?
Sorry, I'm talking about the grounds of belief, You are involved in an argument and yet you don't register the fact..
The universe is evidence since there is cause and effect.
The only economically logical solution is therefore the creator and creation model.
...do you have learning difficulties?
Your ''call that an argument schtick'' just adds to the impression of stupidity on your part.
No, Vlad, I originally challenged your statement:-You really have swallowed the line haven't you.
You have still not come up with even the hint of a justification for it.
Instead of trying to back it up, you have engaged in your usual practice of manufacturing straw men; inventing arguments you'd prefer I'd made instead of trying to back up your own.
Vlad calling me stupid - how will I ever recover!
The hints to God:
Cause and effect....The effect being the universe.
Governance....The laws of the universe not dependent on situation but universality.
Your problem is of course trying to justify and describe the providence of a thing from what is inside it....and worse, from an arbitrary point of view of what can be found inside it....?
You missed out the steps that lead to god.You first with the steps from 'Vlad has no argument' to 'Vlad has an argument' but he has missed steps out.
You first with the steps from 'Vlad has no argument' to 'Vlad has an argument' but he has missed steps out.
I'm afraid causation of and Governance of, and Lawgiving to amount partly to what we are saying God is....
...To say there is no argument is incorrect therefore.
You first with the steps from 'Vlad has no argument' to 'Vlad has an argument' but he has missed steps out.Missing steps out of an argument is the same thing as not having an argument.
Missing steps out of an argument is the same thing as not having an argument.He says I missed steps,,,,,that is his argument. I didn't miss any steps which amount to an argument for God.
He says I missed steps,,,,,that is his argument. I didn't miss any steps which amount to an argument for God.
The hints to God:is a complete argument for god...?
Cause and effect....The effect being the universe.
Governance....The laws of the universe not dependent on situation but universality.
Sorry, so now you are claiming that this:-is a complete argument for god...?Something that causes and provides it with laws to follow........
Hilarious. ;D
Something that causes and provides it with laws to follow........
......of course that's the God argument.
So, you'd call anything that does that "god", would you? Not necessarily a being, not necessarily good or omni- anything. Nothing to do with the bible or any other religion....?To be brutally reductionist about it yes........ since the atheist argument is that the universe and the laws which govern it have just pouffed themselves into existence.
To be brutally reductionist about it yes........ since the atheist argument is that the universe and the laws which govern it have just pouffed themselves into existence.
To be brutally reductionist about it yes........ since the atheist argument is that the universe and the laws which govern it have just pouffed themselves into existence.And there was me thinking that any argument about the universe begins with the basic fact that we know nothing about how the universe came into being including if it even did so.
Whereas the theist argument is that god just pouffed itself into existence.Yes.
And there was me thinking that any argument about the universe begins with the basic fact that we know nothing about how the universe came into being including if it even did so.But stranger and I were not talking about universe arguments but God arguments. I don't think anyone would argue about the universe being........
Whereas the theist argument is that god just pouffed itself into existence.You are confusing an argument for with a claim for.
The point is that you've just bundled up some unknowns and called them "god". You have established absolutely nothing about said unknowns. You have made no argument that this "god" is even one thing let alone a conscious being or that it has any purpose or any connection whatsoever with any religion.
So, to be clear: when you claim that "there is a god", you just mean that we don't know how the universe was caused (if it was) and we don't know why it has physical laws?
You just prefer to call your ignorance "god" and worship it.
Yes.
But that doesn't help you in establishing I have not put forth an argument.
No, that's what the rest of my post did. Rebadging ignorance as god, hardly counts as an argument for anything.No, the rest of your post reveals your car crash confusion between arguments for and claims of.
He says I missed steps,,,,,that is his argument. I didn't miss any steps which amount to an argument for God.Actually you did miss a step. You failed to demonstrate that the cause of the Universe is God.
You are confusing an argument for with a claim for.
God as creator and governor can be argued for and as we know claimed for but a claim and an argument are not the same things.
Antitheists are a group of people roused by the ambitions of famous well heeled earning authors. What their motivations were I don't know , but skill in philosophical argument seems not as vitally important for them as those like your like yourself who are roused to follow the standard. Given the cack handedness in your handling of this thread I suggest you bone up a little more.
Actually you did miss a step. You failed to demonstrate that the cause of the Universe is God.And there is no evidence that it did not since records only go back etc.....
\One of your premises was wrong too. There's no evidence that the Universe even had a cause.
And there is no evidence that it did not ...Hope, is that you?
Ok
Go ahead and argue that anything remotely like any god of any religion is the creator and governor then, the floor is yours...
Can God be ''reduced'' to being seen as Creator and Governor.
IMHO yes.
Since the universe is the Ultimate creation whatever created it must be the ultimate creator.
But there is the option of the creation of chaotic stuff....the option most likely to be caused by unconscious causation. Unconscious causation being the definition of any pre-existent unconscious nature.
However we have laws and laws that are not completely unified to any piece of material. We know for example all protons are positively charged.
Laws govern material and are not subject to it and in turn the laws and materials are subject to mathematics which itself is not subject to unconscious materials in the same way.
We have therefore governance of a universe that goes with creation. If you like a provided universe, in turn provided with governance.
At the level of consciousness there is then the question and discipline of the 'ought'.......this is an extension of Governance provided with creation ahead of the appearance of consciousness.
There we have it therefore. Creation of the ultimate and Governance of the ultimate
And that is definitionally God..............
Firstly, if you are prepared to "reduce" god to that, then you have to accept that it might not be a conscious being or anything like any religious notion of god.No I'm am not calling our ignorance God I am suggesting that something which creates this universe and governs it is God.
Secondly, we don't know that there is a (singular) creator and governor. Many laws of nature seem to have come about by spontaneous symmetry breaking - they may be no more fundamental than (say) the exact pattern of an individual snowflake.
You are, at best, making a guess that there might be a "something" that serves the role of creator and "governor".
How do you know either of those things? Seems to be a baseless assertion.
This appears to be no more than guesswork and wishful thinking. What we observe (and that is all we have to go on) is that consciousness arises from the unconscious.
See above about spontaneous symmetry breaking. We simply don't know what fundamental laws exist or how universal the laws we observe may be. All you appear to be doing is rewording some unknowns in the language of conscious intent; "governance" and "provided".
This hardly makes sense in English. However, we have no evidence that there is any 'ought' outside of human minds, so what your argument here is, is anybody's guess.
Except you have argued for nothing at all. There may or may not be a "something" that serves as creator and "governor" and despite all the words, you have deduced preciously nothing about it, even if it does exist. Also, you have asserted but have provided no reason to think, that it (if it exists) is "ultimate" and does not, in turn, require another "something" to account for its existence.
In summary, you have added nothing to your previous position of just calling our ignorance "god".
No I'm am not calling our ignorance God I am suggesting that something which creates this universe and governs it is God.
I don't understand why you continue to be so hopeless........ly confused.
No I'm am not calling our ignorance God I am suggesting that something which creates this universe and governs it is God.
I don't understand why you continue to be so hopeless........ly confused.