On The Misuse Of The Term God.

[Nearly Sane]

Scanning through here, what are angels?

Literally "messengers". Supernatural, created beings.

What's one of them then when it's in in its supernatural home?

[jeremyp]

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

Do you understand the irony of this, bearing in mind you just used an old book of uncertain provenance as evidence of the existence of mythical Abraham.

[Jack Knave]

...
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?

Argumentum ad populum? This is based on peoples' beliefs not generally known facts in the knowledgeable world. You always resort to these types of tactics when you are losing.

And what evidence would you accept? Some things can't be summed up in one paper but are put together overtime, creating a picture like a mosaic.

Recent development refers to the fact that religion, in the broadest sense, has be going on for 10's of thousands of years, where as monotheism only say the last 3000 years or so.

Abraham - Evidence doesn't count. I also don't know why you brought him up for?

"Is this meant to be a serious point?" - Was yours? You made no attempt to answer my point but as I said your linguistically rolled your eyes.

"In what way?"  - You typed, "Agreed." to my statement, "If it is two then that snookers your one God and your Christian faith." #130. God said 'we' meaning his equals in the matter. And the trinity implies more than one God too.

Just to add to all this the Australian Aborigines' beliefs are generally animist in nature. They arrived in that continent about 45,000 years ago and like all human races outside Africa had emigrated from the African continent about 75,000 years ago. The first earliest humans (our species) known to have existed to date are put about 190,000 years ago. This would mean that all subsequent groups and races right up to the present day would have emerged from groups who believed in animism and/or polytheism.

You seem to be advocating that the Hebrews just popped into existence out of thin air and began believing in one God from the oft.

[Jack Knave]

... 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?

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"?
[/quote]
We have no idea how many universes have been created. You talk as if we have access to all knowledge? 

If the creator was in some fashion analogues to materialistic impersonal forces we see in our world around us it would act according to the patterns or laws that govern it.

What's a "personal agent"? I don't understand your question. We are talking hypothetically here; it is all gossamer of the mind.

[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?

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

I don't believe in anything. I made it clear what I had heard and where and made no great claims about its probity but threw it into this arena to see if anyone else had come across such things in their readings etc.

[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...

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?

So what are angels in terms of knowing right and wrong, freewill and all that, in the context of the Genesis statement? Are they on a par with God, if they can be referred to, by God, as part of the 'we'? What is their status in the big scheme of things?

Why? - Because if they are part of the 'we' we need to clarify whether they are gods, or God-like, or not. Whether there is more than one God in the Bible (not including the other 'heathen' gods mentioned)

[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?

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.

Did you. I didn't notice any pointing out about why you mentioned the Hebrews above. Care to clarify?

[Alien]

Scanning through here, what are angels?

Literally "messengers". Supernatural, created beings.

What's one of them then when it's in in its supernatural home?

It's a supernatural, creating being which is a messenger. Never met one myself though.

Edited: Should read, "created being."

[Alien]

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

Do you understand the irony of this, bearing in mind you just used an old book of uncertain provenance as evidence of the existence of mythical Abraham.

1) No. Why do you think Abraham was mythical (by which I take it you mean he did not actually exist)?
2) Are you saying Jack Knave was right to trust the TV documentary which he sort of remembers from whenever it was by whomever it was?

[Alien]

...
Argumentum ad populum? This is based on peoples' beliefs not generally known facts in the knowledgeable world.

So no good reason for us to accept them (thus far).

You always resort to these types of tactics when you are losing.

Ad hominem. Ignored.

And what evidence would you accept? Some things can't be summed up in one paper but are put together overtime, creating a picture like a mosaic.

Waffle.

Recent development refers to the fact that religion, in the broadest sense, has be going on for 10's of thousands of years,

OK with this.

where as monotheism only say the last 3000 years or so.

How do you know?

Abraham - Evidence doesn't count. I also don't know why you brought him up for?

Evidence doesn't count? You what? I brought up Abraham when I was asked about what the specifically Christian understanding of God is compared to the rather generic deistic/theistic God of the Kalam cosmological argument. That is why. It did not need me to prove Abraham's existence and/or provenance or the origins of the Hebrews any more than me pointing out the particularities of, say, Islamic belief about God means I have to demonstrate where they got them from.

"Is this meant to be a serious point?" - Was yours? You made no attempt to answer my point but as I said your linguistically rolled your eyes.

I like that term. Nice one (seriously).

"In what way?"  - You typed, "Agreed." to my statement, "If it is two then that snookers your one God and your Christian faith." #130. God said 'we' meaning his equals in the matter. And the trinity implies more than one God too.

Oh do read something other than waffly atheistic stuff. If you disagree with the Trinity at least disagree with what the actual idea means. The Trinity does not imply more than one God. Get a grip, man.

Just to add to all this the Australian Aborigines' beliefs are generally animist in nature. They arrived in that continent about 45,000 years ago and like all human races outside Africa had emigrated from the African continent about 75,000 years ago. The first earliest humans (our species) known to have existed to date are put about 190,000 years ago. This would mean that all subsequent groups and races right up to the present day would have emerged from groups who believed in animism and/or polytheism.

"Animism and/or polytheism". You were arguing for polytheism, not animism. If you think Australian aboriginal belief from back then involved polytheism, then please argue the case for polytheism, not animism.

For what it is worth, it may well be that people were polytheists first and then some monotheists later. I have no problem with that.

You seem to be advocating that the Hebrews just popped into existence out of thin air and began believing in one God from the oft.

I'm not advocating that.

[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?

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"?

We have no idea how many universes have been created.[/quote]If you mean we have no physical evidence of any universes other than our own, then yes.

You talk as if we have access to all knowledge? 

Nope.

If the creator was in some fashion analogues to materialistic impersonal forces we see in our world around us it would act according to the patterns or laws that govern it.

So where would these "materialistic impersonal forces" originate from?

What's a "personal agent"?

A being endued with personhood.

I don't understand your question.

Which one?

We are talking hypothetically here; it is all gossamer of the mind.

Speak for yourself.

[Alien]

...
I don't believe in anything. I made it clear what I had heard and where and made no great claims about its probity but threw it into this arena to see if anyone else had come across such things in their readings etc.

OK.

[Alien]

...
So what are angels in terms of knowing right and wrong, freewill and all that, in the context of the Genesis statement? Are they on a par with God, if they can be referred to, by God, as part of the 'we'? What is their status in the big scheme of things?

Why? - Because if they are part of the 'we' we need to clarify whether they are gods, or God-like, or not. Whether there is more than one God in the Bible (not including the other 'heathen' gods mentioned)

Angels are mentioned lots of times, more so in the NT than in the OT, which surprised me. Both the Greek word used (angelos - NT) and the Hebrew word used (malak - OT) mean "messenger". Those words are sometimes used to describe human messengers, e.g. John the Baptist, and someone needs to distinguish (usually fairly easily) whether a supernatural messenger is meant or a human messenger.

So, onto the supernatural messengers, aka "angels". Since God created all things, angels must be created and seem to have knowledge of right and wrong and have freewill and all that. Are they on a par with God? No, no-one is. Can they be referred to as "we" by God? Yes, clearly. Anyone can be referred to as we if the speaker wants to do that. I can refer to you and me as "we" when describing who is having a discussion at the moment.
What is their status in the big scheme of things? How do you mean?

Beware of Christians claiming to know too much about angels (inc. me).

Remember though that I have said I think the Genesis statement is God referring to himself - plural of majesty and all that.

[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?

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.

Did you. I didn't notice any pointing out about why you mentioned the Hebrews above. Care to clarify?

There might be a bit of misunderstanding going on. I first mentioned the Hebrews in #74 in response to your question of, "What additional attributes are needed to make this a Christian God?" to which I replied, "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." Have I missed anything?

Edited: I see #130. Genesis claims that Abraham got his understanding of God from God. Abraham was the ancestor of those who came to be known as Hebrews and Israelites. If that is correct, they did not get their monotheistic ideas from polytheists. Even if it is not correct that Abraham got his info from God, it still leaves the Hebrews getting their understanding of God from their forefathers who were, it seems, monotheistic.

[Jack Knave]

where as monotheism only say the last 3000 years or so.

How do you know?

We have no records of this before around that date nor any references from the ancients saying so and so tribe believed in one god. This includes the East as well.

Abraham - Evidence doesn't count. I also don't know why you brought him up for?

Evidence doesn't count?....

Evidence isn't proof it is just as it says it is, material that could go towards some form of proof. You get good, bad and ugly evidence.

Just to add to all this the Australian Aborigines' beliefs are generally animist in nature. They arrived in that continent about 45,000 years ago and like all human races outside Africa had emigrated from the African continent about 75,000 years ago. The first earliest humans (our species) known to have existed to date are put about 190,000 years ago. This would mean that all subsequent groups and races right up to the present day would have emerged from groups who believed in animism and/or polytheism.

"Animism and/or polytheism". You were arguing for polytheism, not animism. If you think Australian aboriginal belief from back then involved polytheism, then please argue the case for polytheism, not animism.

For what it is worth, it may well be that people were polytheists first and then some monotheists later. I have no problem with that.

Polytheism is just a refinement of animism. They are pretty much the same once the façade of the images are stripped away.

[Jack Knave]

If the creator was in some fashion analogues to materialistic impersonal forces we see in our world around us it would act according to the patterns or laws that govern it.

So where would these "materialistic impersonal forces" originate from?

I told you, what you ask about my causal agent I can ask about yours i.e. God.

What's a "personal agent"?

A being endued with personhood.

Wow, that was useful       

A description provides nothing in the context of our discussion, as it is in reference to a metaphysical proposition. See below.

We are talking hypothetically here; it is all gossamer of the mind.

Speak for yourself.

We are talking about the God that has been postulated from the Kalam argument by you. If you think this God actually exists then go ahead and provide the proof!!!

[Jack Knave]

...
So what are angels in terms of knowing right and wrong, freewill and all that, in the context of the Genesis statement? Are they on a par with God, if they can be referred to, by God, as part of the 'we'? What is their status in the big scheme of things?

Why? - Because if they are part of the 'we' we need to clarify whether they are gods, or God-like, or not. Whether there is more than one God in the Bible (not including the other 'heathen' gods mentioned)

Angels are mentioned lots of times, more so in the NT than in the OT, which surprised me. Both the Greek word used (angelos - NT) and the Hebrew word used (malak - OT) mean "messenger". Those words are sometimes used to describe human messengers, e.g. John the Baptist, and someone needs to distinguish (usually fairly easily) whether a supernatural messenger is meant or a human messenger.

So, onto the supernatural messengers, aka "angels". Since God created all things, angels must be created and seem to have knowledge of right and wrong and have freewill and all that. Are they on a par with God? No, no-one is. Can they be referred to as "we" by God? Yes, clearly. Anyone can be referred to as we if the speaker wants to do that. I can refer to you and me as "we" when describing who is having a discussion at the moment.
What is their status in the big scheme of things? How do you mean?

Beware of Christians claiming to know too much about angels (inc. me).

Remember though that I have said I think the Genesis statement is God referring to himself - plural of majesty and all that.

So if they have freewill and know right from wrong, and all that, how are they different from humans, including the Christian idea of the soul?

You can speak of us as 'we' because we are the same species, but I wouldn't refer to my dogs and I as 'we'. So on that basis I would find it odd for God to speak about Its angels and Itself as 'we'.

The big scheme of things is echoed in the first paragraph. Where do they stand in the hierarchy in Gods plan. Are they above mankind or a lesser being, and all that?

[Alien]

where as monotheism only say the last 3000 years or so.

How do you know?

We have no records of this before around that date nor any references from the ancients saying so and so tribe believed in one god. This includes the East as well.

Ah, the old argument from silence.

Abraham - Evidence doesn't count. I also don't know why you brought him up for?

Evidence doesn't count?....

Evidence isn't proof it is just as it says it is, material that could go towards some form of proof. You get good, bad and ugly evidence.

Agreed.

Just to add to all this the Australian Aborigines' beliefs are generally animist in nature. They arrived in that continent about 45,000 years ago and like all human races outside Africa had emigrated from the African continent about 75,000 years ago. The first earliest humans (our species) known to have existed to date are put about 190,000 years ago. This would mean that all subsequent groups and races right up to the present day would have emerged from groups who believed in animism and/or polytheism.

"Animism and/or polytheism". You were arguing for polytheism, not animism. If you think Australian aboriginal belief from back then involved polytheism, then please argue the case for polytheism, not animism.

For what it is worth, it may well be that people were polytheists first and then some monotheists later. I have no problem with that.

Polytheism is just a refinement of animism. They are pretty much the same once the façade of the images are stripped away.

So Hindus are just refined animists? Have you pointed this out to any Hindus? What was their response? Did they agree with you?

[Alien]

If the creator was in some fashion analogues to materialistic impersonal forces we see in our world around us it would act according to the patterns or laws that govern it.

So where would these "materialistic impersonal forces" originate from?

I told you, what you ask about my causal agent I can ask about yours i.e. God.

That is not an answer. Please answer the question. Please, don't dodge.

What's a "personal agent"?

A being endued with personhood.

Wow, that was useful       

A description provides nothing in the context of our discussion, as it is in reference to a metaphysical proposition. See below.

We are talking hypothetically here; it is all gossamer of the mind.

Speak for yourself.

We are talking about the God that has been postulated from the Kalam argument by you. If you think this God actually exists then go ahead and provide the proof!!!

Why? This thread is on the misuse of the term God; it is not thread #997 on attempting to demonstrate the existence of God.

[Alien]

...
So what are angels in terms of knowing right and wrong, freewill and all that, in the context of the Genesis statement? Are they on a par with God, if they can be referred to, by God, as part of the 'we'? What is their status in the big scheme of things?

Why? - Because if they are part of the 'we' we need to clarify whether they are gods, or God-like, or not. Whether there is more than one God in the Bible (not including the other 'heathen' gods mentioned)

Angels are mentioned lots of times, more so in the NT than in the OT, which surprised me. Both the Greek word used (angelos - NT) and the Hebrew word used (malak - OT) mean "messenger". Those words are sometimes used to describe human messengers, e.g. John the Baptist, and someone needs to distinguish (usually fairly easily) whether a supernatural messenger is meant or a human messenger.

So, onto the supernatural messengers, aka "angels". Since God created all things, angels must be created and seem to have knowledge of right and wrong and have freewill and all that. Are they on a par with God? No, no-one is. Can they be referred to as "we" by God? Yes, clearly. Anyone can be referred to as we if the speaker wants to do that. I can refer to you and me as "we" when describing who is having a discussion at the moment.
What is their status in the big scheme of things? How do you mean?

Beware of Christians claiming to know too much about angels (inc. me).

Remember though that I have said I think the Genesis statement is God referring to himself - plural of majesty and all that.

So if they have freewill and know right from wrong, and all that, how are they different from humans, including the Christian idea of the soul?

There is little in the Scriptures explaining what they are, but more on what they did in certain situations. However, as far as I can tell, they are directly created beings, i.e. there is no mention of mummy and daddy angels. What about the "Christian idea of the soul"?

You can speak of us as 'we' because we are the same species, but I wouldn't refer to my dogs and I as 'we'. So on that basis I would find it odd for God to speak about Its angels and Itself as 'we'.

The big scheme of things is echoed in the first paragraph. Where do they stand in the hierarchy in Gods plan. Are they above mankind or a lesser being, and all that?

I'd be happy to refer to my dog and me as "we" on occasions, e.g. "Darling, we heard you come in the front door and came to meet you." "We" does not imply the same species, just that I and at least one other being did or are doing the same thing. That's all.

[Jack Knave]

where as monotheism only say the last 3000 years or so.

How do you know?

We have no records of this before around that date nor any references from the ancients saying so and so tribe believed in one god. This includes the East as well.

Ah, the old argument from silence.

Abraham - Evidence doesn't count. I also don't know why you brought him up for?

Evidence doesn't count?....

Evidence isn't proof it is just as it says it is, material that could go towards some form of proof. You get good, bad and ugly evidence.

Agreed.

Just to add to all this the Australian Aborigines' beliefs are generally animist in nature. They arrived in that continent about 45,000 years ago and like all human races outside Africa had emigrated from the African continent about 75,000 years ago. The first earliest humans (our species) known to have existed to date are put about 190,000 years ago. This would mean that all subsequent groups and races right up to the present day would have emerged from groups who believed in animism and/or polytheism.

"Animism and/or polytheism". You were arguing for polytheism, not animism. If you think Australian aboriginal belief from back then involved polytheism, then please argue the case for polytheism, not animism.

For what it is worth, it may well be that people were polytheists first and then some monotheists later. I have no problem with that.

Polytheism is just a refinement of animism. They are pretty much the same once the façade of the images are stripped away.

So Hindus are just refined animists? Have you pointed this out to any Hindus? What was their response? Did they agree with you?

So you see no animal or partial animal forms in any of the Hindu gods? No hint of some vestige past forms of such creatures?

[Jack Knave]

I told you, what you ask about my causal agent I can ask about yours i.e. God.

That is not an answer. Please answer the question. Please, don't dodge.

The problem you have which is clouding your judgement is that you have assumed that your God is real from the outset of the argument to show that God exists. You fail to see that God is just a mere word which is pliable and nebulous to fit any shape one likes like a fluid (hence your rubbish below). So all I'm proposing is a God which is impersonal. And I mean by God to be any old nebulous crap one likes, such as "Something" analogues to an impersonal non physical force or action.

We are talking about the God that has been postulated from the Kalam argument by you. If you think this God actually exists then go ahead and provide the proof!!!

Why? This thread is on the misuse of the term God; it is not thread #997 on attempting to demonstrate the existence of God.

One of the misuses is the assumption that the word God is actually a reference to something real and which exists. Hence why you have included the word in your argument, as referenced in the OP, before any definition and clarification has taken place on the word God. So yes, attempts of demonstrations of the existence of God is part, or implied therein, of the remit of the OP.

[Jack Knave]

What about the "Christian idea of the soul"?

What about it? How does this follow on from the chat about angels?

[Alien]

...
So you see no animal or partial animal forms in any of the Hindu gods? No hint of some vestige past forms of such creatures?

You may be right, sir. I know little about Hinduism.

Can we go back to your "This would mean that all subsequent groups and races right up to the present day would have emerged from groups who believed in animism and/or polytheism."? Would you clarify something for me, please? Are you claiming that Judaism was a development of animism and/or polytheism? I have no problem if Abraham, say, was originally a polytheist. Genesis says that Yahweh spoke to him and led him from his home city to Canaan. That doesn't sound like a development from polytheism. I'm wondering if I have understood you correctly.

[Alien]

What about the "Christian idea of the soul"?

What about it? How does this follow on from the chat about angels?

I don't know. It was you who mentioned it first in the post I was replying to.