On The Misuse Of The Term God.

[Jack Knave]

...
My anecdotal evidence is that paganism, polytheism, is known to have come first before monotheism.

I thought you lot didn't go in for anecdotal evidence.

The first inkling of this was with Akhenaten in Egypt (roughly 1300 BC) and Heraclitus mentioned that logically the gods would be rendered down to just one. 

You've forgotten people like Abraham who were before then.

As for your second question, who are the Hebrews? They didn't just form out of thin air did they,

Er, no. No-one is claiming that.

they had to have come from some where, or many places as groups joined to form bigger groups, going back in time way into prehistory. And all the books of the Bible were written after leaving Babylon - 530's BC...? (There was a programme on BBC4 just a few weeks ago on the ark mentioning clearly, with proof, that the flood story came from Babylon).

Oh dear. Not that old chestnut again. You really ought to read a bit wider. The phrase "confirmation bias" comes to mind.

These earlier groups, going into prehistory, would have been polytheists.

That's not evidence; it's just repeating your claim.

3) Your agreement. So you admit that Genesis makes a mockery of your idea of one God?

Eh? Where did you get that idea from? What is "3)"?

As for point 4 I read the Bible etc. and talked to others on this in my 20's so I'm relying on my memory here hoping others on this board will seal what I say with clarification.

Eh? So it is something someone told you down the pub how long ago?

So God isn't referred to as The One in some of the books of the Bible?

"The One"? He is described as being one, e.g. in the Shema Deut 6 and this as quoted by Jesus.

What exactly is it that you are trying to say?

Monotheism is a recent development, everyone knows this that's why I said anecdote because I haven't to hand the info foe this, but everyone with half a brain knows this.

Abraham? You have proof that he ever existed?

You mentioned the Hebrews first not me, so it is up to you to say where they came from.

In this case the old chestnuts are the best!!! And it is a very valid point which you are trying to avoid by rolling your eyes.

You have this habit of agreeing with someone and then denying it. In your previous post you agreed with me, I just followed it on to the obvious conclusion.

[Jack Knave]

...

It can just as easily be plausibly impersonal. This you didn't include in your argument and so makes it incomplete. How you fail to understand this surely points to you being one of those gullible fools at Cambridge and who lacks the basic abilities in school boy philosophy.

I have said it/he is plausibly personal, which leaves open the possibility that it/he is not personal. It is that simple.

Though I know I quoted something else from you in the OP what I'm referring to is what you gave me in #92 in my other thread What Is God Made Of. I.e. this:-

"...and it has been argued that this can only have been if the cause of the universe was a personal agent (a person) who was acting freely."

You add credence to this idea of a personal agent by the phrase ''it has been argued'' but leave it unsaid. And you make no mention to the fact that it could be an impersonal agent, also.

Ok then, go ahead, present this argument, you mention, for a personal agent.

In that other thread, I wrote at the end of the bit about the Kalam Cosmological Argument,"An additional characteristic of this cause of the universe might be understood. Though God is timeless (at least without the universe), he still created time. It is difficult to understand how a timeless being can create stuff to do with time (temporal events). With physical causes, effects follow in time from their causes. Thus if some water has been below 0°C for all eternity, it will have been frozen for all eternity. Somehow the timeless cause of the universe caused events to take place and it has been argued that this can only have been if the cause of the universe was a personal agent (a person) who was acting freely. Deep stuff…"

"It has been argued" could have been put better. "Some have argued"? I certainly did not write, "It has been demonstrated" or "It has been proven". To clarify, "It is plausible..."

It is part of your argument for the existence of God and the statement, however phrased, adds subliminal weight to it which some may take naively as being valid and moving the argument towards your desired result. Therefore, as you used it as part of your argument you are obliged to present it, as I have asked. It may turnout to be flimsy and full of holes and do nothing for your case or it may be of sufficient substance that requires further constructive analysis.

The fact that you have applied this plausible clause of the personal element to the full statement, as you have reproduced above, doesn't change the fact that it is just as plausible and likely that the creative agent was impersonal.

I await your presentation.

Nah. I'll point you to a bloke who can put it better than me. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2mFogzBO-Y

What WLC is talking about there is basically potential and this does not have to be personal. Anyway you would still have to explain where God came from

? Why? Why would he have to come from anywhere?

- and where Its nature came from to have this 'freewill'; to not act and then act.

Why? It is not necessary to explain an explanation for the explanation to be a good explanation. However, the idea is that God did not have a beginning.

Your answer to this could be applied quite adequately to a non-personal agent.

Why?

And there are loads of examples of impersonal forces in the universe that are in a state of potential, so having an agent as you describe for your argument but is non-personal is still a legitimate state of affairs.

So forces "in the universe" created the universe?

And additionally a non-personal agent could still technically have freewill, though I don't believe in such stuff.

How would that work? Are you saying that electricity or the strong nuclear force or gravity have freewill?

If you can make up crap about this God of yours then why can't I say that the causal agent you outlined for the Kalam argument can be just as viably non-personal and not god-like as you saying it is personal and god-like?

If God did not have a beginning then whatever impersonal agent that may have caused the universe could also have had no beginning. Either case is logically plausible, yet you biasedly chose to only mention one, which loads the dice in your predispositional favour.

[Jack Knave]

Gen 3:22 - The lord said man has become like one of us...spot the difference Alien!

I suggest you read Gen 6:4 and the verses around it.

Well, there are of course some Christians who think that was the various bits of the Trinity talking to itself/themselves.

However, in the multiple authorship theory of the origins of the Penteuch, it's just tales from one author referring to God as Elohim (plural), whereas another author of other versions of the same tales refers to God as Yahweh.

I have heard that there are five main different Gods in the OT and the idea is that when various tribes joined forces the stronger ones insisted that their God featured as a significant element in the combined religion.

I don't suppose you will provide some evidence for this, bearing in mind you haven't for anything previously. Was it from a Christmas cracker?

An archaeological TV programme. As I said, "I have heard..." They would have reasons for saying this. One was, iirc, was that the references to these five Gods' names only appeared on their own in various books which had different styles of writing/expression etc. and so they never appeared side by side in any single book, therefore, providing clear delineations between them.

I admire your "faith" in this anonymous person on an unknown TV programme shown at sometime in the past.

They are an expert in their field. They wouldn't have done it without some justification else they would have made a prat of themselves on prime time TV. I mention in the hope others may have come across such articles and data in this area and as such add to this discussion. I never claimed it was sign and sealed and an absolute truth, did I?

[Jack Knave]

God is speaking and says like one of us. That speaks for itself.

Couldn't agree more, Jack. It speaks for itself.  What it doesn't indicate is that there is a plurality of gods within the Godhead.  However, one only realises this when one reads the passage in context.

So who is God referring to in the 'we' and 'us'?

Himself or, possibly, the angels as well.

So where did the angels come from. No mention of them in Genesis...

And this then implies that they know right and wrong etc. as God and man does?

[Jack Knave]

#138 (ish)
Jack Knave.
You describe your notion of Akhenaten's monotheism' as 'anecdotal'.
Hopefully you have researched your position on the nature of God in a slightly better way.
Hope and Alien are doing a fine job throwing theology speak at you, but can I suggest you refrain from 'anecdotes' as asource of knowledge?
It was such 'anecdotes' which have created a real mess as far as the 'Heretic king' is concerned.
The corpus of opinion from most leading Egyptologists over the past three decades is that Akhenaten was not strictly momotheist (based on the fact that, while he was building umpteen alters to his 'sole god; at his Akhetaten (Amarna) capital, both he, and his wife, ruliing as joint king, were building and enhancing temples to Re, Osiris, and Amun-Ra....which are not exactly monotheistic acts.

'Anecdotes' then, are really not very good foundations for arguments.

The anecdote was in reference to historical developments of religion from polytheism/paganism/primitive man etc. to the more recent monotheism of today. Alien seem to ignore the fact that the Hebrews had to come from some where, that mankind has developed over tens of thousands of years. Is he a YEC?

I am aware that Akhenaten's religious position wasn't a pure monotheistic one. However, his actions as you describe may have been more political to keep the peace as most of the priestly groups and others with power were far from happy about what he was doing.

[2Corrie]

Monotheism is a recent development

Nope, The one true God walked in the garden of Eden, in the cool of the day, with Adam and Eve, at the beginning.  False religion and idolatry came after the fall.

[Shaker]

Pics or it didn't happen.

[2Corrie]

Genesis does not say "Man has become like us gods".

Then the Lord God said, ‘See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever’

Understand the first verse of Genesis. A seemingly plural noun (Elohim) is used with the singular form of the verb to create (Bara). Why do you think this is?

 
 

[floo]

Monotheism is a recent development

Nope, The one true God walked in the garden of Eden, in the cool of the day, with Adam and Eve, at the beginning.  False religion and idolatry came after the fall.

That is a mere belief, NOT a FACT!

[torridon]

Monotheism is a recent development

Nope, The one true God walked in the garden of Eden, in the cool of the day, with Adam and Eve, at the beginning.  False religion and idolatry came after the fall.

Jack is right, and you are wrong.

Theism is about beliefs and people have entertained all manner of beliefs to try to explain the numinous, and there has been a broad evolution from animist and polytheist beliefs towards monotheist beliefs over time, this perhaps mirroring the evolution of human societies from tribal groupings towards larger civilisations.  The Egyptian Pharaoah Akhenaten is often quoted as the first monotheist with his identification with Aten.

[Dicky Underpants]

I am aware that Akhenaten's religious position wasn't a pure monotheistic one. However, his actions as you describe may have been more political to keep the peace as most of the priestly groups and others with power were far from happy about what he was doing.

This is borne out by the observation that shortly after Akhenaten's death, all the innovations Akh. made were overthrown, and the previous array of Egyptian deities were reinstated much as before.

[Dicky Underpants]

Monotheism is a recent development

Nope, The one true God walked in the garden of Eden, in the cool of the day, with Adam and Eve, at the beginning.  False religion and idolatry came after the fall.

That would be the omniscient one, who didn't know where A and E were hiding?

[jeremyp]

Monotheism is a recent development

Nope, The one true God walked in the garden of Eden, in the cool of the day, with Adam and Eve, at the beginning.  False religion and idolatry came after the fall.

That's all just fiction though.

[Jack Knave]

Monotheism is a recent development

Nope, The one true God walked in the garden of Eden, in the cool of the day, with Adam and Eve, at the beginning.  False religion and idolatry came after the fall.

God has legs does It? Or is this just another symbol of Its majesty and power, as in the plural of 'we'? 

[Alien]

...
Monotheism is a recent development, everyone knows this that's why I said anecdote because I haven't to hand the info foe this, but everyone with half a brain knows this.

Hmm. This must be one of the most blatant argumentum ad populums for some months.

Now, assume I have only 45% of a normal brain. Please supply me with some evidence for your claim. Now you may be correct in what you assert, but it would be good to see some evidence for it.

What do you mean by "recent development"? 2000 years ago? 3000 years ago? The reason I would have no real problem with the first monotheists coming later than the first polytheists is that, like many other evangelicals, I don't see Genesis 1-3 as being an exhaustive, scientific account of man's origins. I'd put Adam and Eve down as possibly the first monotheists.

Abraham? You have proof that he ever existed?

Proof? No. I do have evidence that he existed and so do you. It's in Genesis, for example.

You mentioned the Hebrews first not me, so it is up to you to say where they came from.

Nope. I first mentioned them thus:

You: What additional attributes are needed to make this a Christian God?
Me: Interacting with the Patriarchs, the Hebrews, Israel and Judah, Jesus, the Christian church. Stuff like that. None of this is covered by the Kalam argument.

There is no need to demonstrate where the Hebrews came from for my simple explanation of what additional attributes are needed over and above the Kalam argument to be speaking of a Christian God.

In this case the old chestnuts are the best!!! And it is a very valid point which you are trying to avoid by rolling your eyes.

Is this meant to be a serious point?

You have this habit of agreeing with someone and then denying it. In your previous post you agreed with me, I just followed it on to the obvious conclusion.

In what way?

[Alien]

... And additionally a non-personal agent could still technically have freewill, though I don't believe in such stuff.

How would that work? Are you saying that electricity or the strong nuclear force or gravity have freewill?

If you can make up crap about this God of yours then why can't I say that the causal agent you outlined for the Kalam argument can be just as viably non-personal and not god-like as you saying it is personal and god-like?[/quote]You can say that. However, it would help to know why you thing an impersonal force would generate a universe and not 2, 3, 4 or a huge number one after the other. Stuff like that.

If God did not have a beginning then whatever impersonal agent that may have caused the universe could also have had no beginning. Either case is logically plausible, yet you biasedly chose to only mention one, which loads the dice in your predispositional favour.

What's an "impersonal agent"?

[Alien]

Gen 3:22 - The lord said man has become like one of us...spot the difference Alien!

I suggest you read Gen 6:4 and the verses around it.

Well, there are of course some Christians who think that was the various bits of the Trinity talking to itself/themselves.

However, in the multiple authorship theory of the origins of the Penteuch, it's just tales from one author referring to God as Elohim (plural), whereas another author of other versions of the same tales refers to God as Yahweh.

I have heard that there are five main different Gods in the OT and the idea is that when various tribes joined forces the stronger ones insisted that their God featured as a significant element in the combined religion.

I don't suppose you will provide some evidence for this, bearing in mind you haven't for anything previously. Was it from a Christmas cracker?

An archaeological TV programme. As I said, "I have heard..." They would have reasons for saying this. One was, iirc, was that the references to these five Gods' names only appeared on their own in various books which had different styles of writing/expression etc. and so they never appeared side by side in any single book, therefore, providing clear delineations between them.

I admire your "faith" in this anonymous person on an unknown TV programme shown at sometime in the past.

They are an expert in their field. They wouldn't have done it without some justification else they would have made a prat of themselves on prime time TV. I mention in the hope others may have come across such articles and data in this area and as such add to this discussion. I never claimed it was sign and sealed and an absolute truth, did I?

So who were these experts? Are you saying you believe everything on every documentary on the telly?

[Alien]

God is speaking and says like one of us. That speaks for itself.

Couldn't agree more, Jack. It speaks for itself.  What it doesn't indicate is that there is a plurality of gods within the Godhead.  However, one only realises this when one reads the passage in context.

So who is God referring to in the 'we' and 'us'?

Himself or, possibly, the angels as well.

So where did the angels come from. No mention of them in Genesis...

No, but they do seem to be mentioned at the start of Job, which is likely to be an older text than Genesis. So what about them not being mentioned in Genesis? As I say, I reckon it is God using the plural of majesty. That is why I said "possibly" the angels as well.

And this then implies that they know right and wrong etc. as God and man does?

Yes, I would think so. Why?

[Alien]

#138 (ish)
Jack Knave.
You describe your notion of Akhenaten's monotheism' as 'anecdotal'.
Hopefully you have researched your position on the nature of God in a slightly better way.
Hope and Alien are doing a fine job throwing theology speak at you, but can I suggest you refrain from 'anecdotes' as asource of knowledge?
It was such 'anecdotes' which have created a real mess as far as the 'Heretic king' is concerned.
The corpus of opinion from most leading Egyptologists over the past three decades is that Akhenaten was not strictly momotheist (based on the fact that, while he was building umpteen alters to his 'sole god; at his Akhetaten (Amarna) capital, both he, and his wife, ruliing as joint king, were building and enhancing temples to Re, Osiris, and Amun-Ra....which are not exactly monotheistic acts.

'Anecdotes' then, are really not very good foundations for arguments.

The anecdote was in reference to historical developments of religion from polytheism/paganism/primitive man etc. to the more recent monotheism of today. Alien seem to ignore the fact that the Hebrews had to come from some where, that mankind has developed over tens of thousands of years. Is he a YEC?

I most definitely am not a YECer. I don't think the YEC position is the best understanding of the biblical texts and definitely not the best scientific understanding.

As for the origin of the Hebrews, I have pointed out above why I mentioned the Hebrews and it didn't require knowing their origin.

[Alien]

Pics or it didn't happen.

[Alien]

Genesis does not say "Man has become like us gods".

Then the Lord God said, ‘See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever’

Understand the first verse of Genesis. A seemingly plural noun (Elohim) is used with the singular form of the verb to create (Bara). Why do you think this is?

Decent point there, ma'am.

[Alien]

Monotheism is a recent development

Nope, The one true God walked in the garden of Eden, in the cool of the day, with Adam and Eve, at the beginning.  False religion and idolatry came after the fall.

That is a mere belief, NOT a FACT!

So it is your belief that it is a mere belief. Why do you have this belief that 2Corrie's belief is not a fact?

[Alien]

Monotheism is a recent development

Nope, The one true God walked in the garden of Eden, in the cool of the day, with Adam and Eve, at the beginning.  False religion and idolatry came after the fall.

That would be the omniscient one, who didn't know where A and E were hiding?

No, yes. It would be the one who knew where A and E were but still asked.

[Nearly Sane]

Scanning through here, what are angels?

[Alien]

Scanning through here, what are angels?

Literally "messengers". Supernatural, created beings.