|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Aug 9, 2018 11:17:08 GMT
You can't apply a universal definition without apply specifics. There's no point in having a discussion unless one highlights the specifics of your flaws to any particular known monotheistic deity There isn't any flaw in my argument. Ok, bring your own points from your religion but don't blame me if your religion gets refuted then and your God attains a status of a god from storybook (because of inherent contradictions). If you kept arguing by just taking attributes of God as premises at least you would have kept God albeit not a great or good God. Just a God. I will but you haven't validated your argument yet. All I'm doing, and successfully so, is invalidate that argument against God of the Bible. You culd be right about every other monotheistic deity out there, but you've definitely been incorrect about Yahweh. FF appears to be stepping in to help you out though. |
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Aug 9, 2018 11:22:16 GMT
There isn't any flaw in my argument. Ok, bring your own points from your religion but don't blame me if your religion gets refuted then and your God attains a status of a god from storybook (because of inherent contradictions). If you kept arguing by just taking attributes of God as premises at least you would have kept God albeit not a great or good God. Just a God. I will but you haven't validated your argument yet. All I'm doing, and successfully so, is invalidate that argument against God of the Bible. You culd be right about every other monotheistic deity out there, but you've definitely been incorrect about Yahweh. FF appears to be stepping in to help you out though. From what I see you haven't even answered my last post . Here it is if it helps you friend. link
I see no refutation from your end. It will be only awesome for me when you start dishing out God that regrets things and becomes emotional.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Aug 9, 2018 11:27:24 GMT
I will but you haven't validated your argument yet. All I'm doing, and successfully so, is invalidate that argument against God of the Bible. You culd be right about every other monotheistic deity out there, but you've definitely been incorrect about Yahweh. FF appears to be stepping in to help you out though. From what I see you haven't even answered my last post . Here it is if it helps you friend. link
I see no refutation from your end. It will be only awesome for me when start dishing out God that regrets things and becomes emotional.
I have not. It's too big. I'll get to it when I can and eventually will stop responding to them or being choosy with my replies. Most of the time, big reply posts become repetitive and time consuming. Somewhere in our discussions, the answer was already laid out and the spinning of wheels commences. All I have to do is poke holes in your argument. You have the bigger responsibility of trying to fill those holes or concede. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 9, 2018 11:28:05 GMT
I have not heard of a God changing his essential nature. While God can do miracles inside his Universe (which being infinite is meaningless) when we assume monotheism we assume no other source of power/life is present. As such such a God would not be disturbed from outside. The external force that is needed to change the states of a moving or stationary object.
This is an interesting point of speculation to which I will make two observations. Since you above mention of not hearing of a god which can change its nature (assuming I read you the right way), then this does not necessarily mean that there cannot be gods which can in fact change themselves in this way.
Secondly I might also add that if I think of God who cannot change His nature, then I can also think of a god which can, and so which one might say would be the grander, greater of the two.
But aren't human characteristics (or anthropomorphism) just a 'system' of sorts, i.e. an organising structure of identities, co operating elements in and of themselves working through to a way and end? Away from this consideration it might be more accurate to deem a reality which worked without divine guidance and without reason or deliberation, more of a system in the way you mean, than a purported deity whose human-like subjectivity, rage, jealousy, love vanity & etc might be unsystematic for reasons all of its own which we cannot know. |
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Aug 9, 2018 11:29:38 GMT
From what I see you haven't even answered my last post . Here it is if it helps you friend. link
I see no refutation from your end. It will be only awesome for me when start dishing out God that regrets things and becomes emotional.
I have not. It's too big. I'll get to it when I can and eventually will stop responding to them or being choosy with my replies. Most of the time, big reply posts become repetitive and time consuming. Somewhere in our discussions, the answer was already laid out and the spinning of wheels commences. All I have to do is poke holes in your argument. You have the bigger responsibility of trying to fill those holes or concede. Sure take your time. I can understand that people can get bored of long philosophical discussions. But the claim that you poked holes in my argument is just a claim. |
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Aug 9, 2018 12:00:04 GMT
FilmFlaneur My view on the first point you raise is that if there are monotheistic religions whose Gods change nature then those religions have essentially committed bad editing and mistakes and have made God do things against her nature (remember that these religions emphasise that their gods are all-powerful, omniscient, perfect etc.). For example, if a religion claims that its God is perfect and then simultaneously depicts god that either regrets, becomes emotional or changes his nature then such a religion is making itself inconsistent and refutable. On a side note, the God of Hinduism (Brahman) maintains that God is a state of permanence and is 100% unchangeable. That said Hinduism or Vedanta itself has 1000s of contradictions which make it refutable. As for the second point you raise, it is possible for you to think of a God who changes his nature. But the changes that he is supposed to make should have a logical basis. Almost all religions that claim to be monotheistic such as Sikhism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Vaishnavism, Shaktism, Hare Krishna, Baha'I and Zoroastrianism have not just monotheistic god but also omniscient god. While I personally do not place a lot of merit in omnipotence-paradox, all these religions commit many other mistakes that make their God go against his/her nature. In one my posts I said even if these contradictory religions may have portrayed Gods doing all kinds of things contrary to their nature (which their adherents do no accept), we will discuss more according to certain attributes that are generally attached to monotheistic God- Omniscient, all-powerful, perfect etc. I do apologise if I didn't make it clear enough that I want to discuss monotheistic Gods in accordance with generally held nature of monotheistic gods for vast majority of real monotheists. While religions may be different, the attributes of their Gods are not much different. Yeah, but more usually you attach emotions such as love, affection, goodness, sadness with human traits and traits such as lack of emotion and sticking to system with computers. of course computers can have bugs and do weird things.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 9, 2018 12:00:22 GMT
FF: So where in the Bible does it say that your preferred deity is not everywhere, does not have unlimited understanding or has its power circumscribed? CJG: You mean besides all the places that say he wants us to choose, Giving us choice does not eliminate any part of your God described above, and in fact you make this exact same point below, rather self-contradictorily. If God can do anything then, well, He can readily chose not do something (like run our lives for us). At the same time of course, God can still know all of the choices someone might have, and the range of consequences, like the variations on the chess board as a game plays out.
Really? It might be best that you read what your fellow believers say about this as you never accept my word for things:
"From the moment the christian god chose to create man kind, he knew our past, present and future. In actuality, these concepts of linear time would not have meant anything to the christian god. He would know just know everything about us. "
new.exchristian.net/2013/01/why-is-god-surprised-by-events-in-bible.html
"Yes, that is true. God is never surprised" (Pastor John Piper) www.desiringgod.org/interviews/is-god-ever-surprised
1 John 3:20 tells us "God knows everything" Ps 147:5 says clearly that God's "understanding is infinite". Again, one struggles to see caveats with these remarks. Someone whose understanding of everything is infinite cannot by definition be surprised, leaving only space for regret that things turned out as they did, when your God duly 'repents', and maybe changes His mind. (Although here I can readily imagine a superior god, one which gets things 'right' first time) And, incidentally, by being (apparently) outside of time and space, your God would necessarily have perfect foresight and aftersight anyway, would He not?
I am not sure how this limits your deity. Unless of course His penthouse has a restricted view? Here is a helpful list, also by the faithful, of things your deity apparently cannot do - some of them though, rather confusingly, are more things he cannot stand and so irrelevant! As you can see, the rest of the shortened list all pertain to His nature or the manifestation of it, where I have already observed that philosophers commonly agree that God cannot do one thing - change His nature. cgi.org/twelve-things-god-cannot-do Which rather agrees with my point made at the top here which argues against your claim and so: QED. Which part of God's "infinite understanding", or John's "He knows everything." quoted already, do you not understand? Don't you hold the Bible inerrant? And when I allege that God has done everything which can be done (as opposed to knowing everything that can be) come back with your demand again. As usual I can only say that you could well be right, but the substantiation from Biblical authority, clear verse no less, and the easily found views of your fellow believers by way of authority makes it more likely that you are not as, between them they ought to know. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 9, 2018 12:12:58 GMT
My view on the first point you raise is that if there are monotheistic religions whose Gods change nature then those religions have essentially committed bad editing and mistakes and have made God do things against her nature (remember that these religions emphasise that their gods are all-powerful, omniscient, perfect etc.). For example, if a religion claims that its God is perfect and then simultaneously depicts god that either regrets, becomes emotional or changes his nature then such a religion is making itself inconsistent and refutable. But then the obvious question is, what if it is the case that part of the nature of a changeable God is to be, well, changeable? Since things are by their nature beyond proof, then the answer of whether or not is unknowable. But one can at least imagine a god which could be changeable in this way. Once again the observation would be that I can think of an illogical god which would, as part of its nature, be illogical when it wanted; and that, since gods typically work in 'mysterious ways' that cannot be fully known, then there is no meaningful way to judge their actions from a human perspective, although yes, we can judge those who follow them and their inconsistencies of word and claim. Fair enough. However it is arguable that any entity with deliberation, beard and vanity or not, would work to a system since something undeliberated is unsystematic. |
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Aug 9, 2018 12:40:11 GMT
FilmFlaneurSure you can imagine such a God. I am not at all contending that you can't. My main issue was that it is better to discuss such topics from the viewpoint of the people who actually claim to follow a monotheistic God. I have been trying to say that almost all regions in the world that actually claim to believe in monotheistic god generally also claim that their gods have following attributes - omniscience, all-powerful being, perfect being, logical being. I am nowhere saying that the gods depicted in the famous religions are actually logical. Sure all these religions contradict their claims. Most of their adherents do not agree but the religions surely are full of contradictions. But it is better if we discussed these issues along the lines which monotheistic religions purportedly claim to represent. None of the monotheistic religions will claim to have a god that does illogical thing or a god that is evil. Sure we can conceive of such gods. But my intention was to keep this discussion along the lines of attributes that monotheists generally attach to their Gods as discussion will then have more realistic touch. I may not have been clear on that in my initial post. So sorry about that. One extra observation I will like to make - It is not just 3 Abhrahamic religion that claim to have logical, omniscient and all-powerful monotheistic Gods. Even religions such as Baha'I, Sikhism, Vaishnavism and Zorastrianism also claim to have one ruler who is omniscient. good, logical. The attributes of monotheistic Gods are nearly the same.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 9, 2018 14:04:09 GMT
I have been trying to say that almost all regions in the world that actually claim to believe in monotheistic god generally also claim that their gods have following attributes - omniscience, all-powerful being, perfect being, logical being. I am nowhere saying that the gods depicted in the famous religions are actually logical. Sure all these religions contradict their claims. Most of their adherents do not agree but the religions surely are full of contradictions. But it is better if we discussed these issues along the lines which monotheistic religions purportedly claim to represent. None of the monotheistic religions will claim to have a god that does illogical thing or a god that is evil. Sure we can conceive of such gods. But my intention was to keep this discussion along the lines of attributes that monotheists generally attach to their Gods as discussion will then have more realistic touch. I may not have been clear on that in my initial post. So sorry about that. Fair enough. Although the nature of a god, like notions of beauty, is likely always to remain in the eye of the beholder, and so what may be obviously illogical or opaque to an outside observer (some aspects of the Trinity for instance, not surprising where a definition of God was originally devised by a committee!) to initiates it all makes perfect sense. And the point still remains that, if one cannot know things transcendental for sure then any statement about a god, negative or positive, since unverifiable is likely meaningless anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Aug 9, 2018 14:27:26 GMT
Aj_JuneThe only authority we have is the authority bestowed upon us by...wait for it...the authority. Heck, some countries don't even allow ones to question authority. The reason why there is a remote possibility of knocking off someone is because we identify authority as a pillar of society run by humans. So to judge the notion of God being good on the bais of human limitations is a weird proposition to begin with. To be clear, that is all you're saying. Because we can not inflict damage on God like we can each other, then God cannot be defined. This is faulty reasoning. I still cannot comprehend why someone has a need to punish God based on a hypothetical that does not happen. I don't even know why authority is based on the count of punishment one can inflict. Maybe this is all addressed later. Another example of defining something on the basis of our view of an invented & illogical assumption. I don't agree with us having an intrinsic understanding of God. Clearly we don't. What we know of God in the Bible is what we learn about him. The definition did not come before him as if he had a role to fill. For example, let's pretend that eternal torment is a thing. By your argument, the existence of it would automatically be something a monotheistic God would do and thus we could not determine whether it was a good and that we automatically assume it was just. I say that the laws God has actually implemented are what define whether he or the law is good. Discord & disruption. I mistrust and hatred of things he does for his creation. Nearly his entire human creation on multiple occasions have abandoned the clearly better path of following him for momentary wants and then blame him for when things go wrong for their boneheaded actions. Even while that is happening, a large portion of his heavenly empire is rebelling against him as well. This has always put people that love him in greater danger and while we don't know how life works in heaven, his angels which he may have created and has known for untold and countless years are warring with each other as well. Now granted none of this means anything if you think the only thing that matters is that law is implemented, but since we have Scripture to go off of and only your word to the contrary (Again no basis for your statements beyond the statement itself), we know this things have a profound impact on God even if it stops shorting of your standard of killing him. I have no idea how you can make this conclusion. All God changing his mind means is that he is more than justice and perfection entails more than the justice component. Per Scripture God is move by justice, power or ability, love, & wisdom with love, not justice, as the primary motivator These qualities allow for change and is reflected almost immediately in Scripture (Genesis 3) and permeates throughout which is why it's so odd that you pretend it doesn't and have no interest in proving your misguided point. Are you telling me that I have real respect for historical figures? Do I have real respect for Napoleon, Stalin, King Tut, Caesar, Thomas Jefferson, etc... on the basis of them being historical figures I've heard of more than others? You put a caveat in there about excepting evil ones, but how do you have the right to determine who was evil? Greatness and good are not human qualities. They are qualities that humans can define particular actions, but we don't own the words.
|
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Aug 9, 2018 14:59:47 GMT
FilmFlaneur One extra observation I will like to make - It is not just 3 Abhrahamic religion that claim to have logical, omniscient and all-powerful monotheistic Gods. Even religions such as Baha'I, Sikhism, Vaishnavism and Zorastrianism also claim to have one ruler who is omniscient. good, logical. The attributes of monotheistic Gods are nearly the same. I wonder if there was influence between the Abrahamic and non-Abrahamic religions. If not that might suggest an underlying inevitable universal principle to arrive at the same description of God (either because He/She/It exists or because of an unlearned common human psychological quality involved in the synthesis of these religions). On the other hand maybe "infinitely powerful supreme being" is an elementary and trivially natural direction for a religion to take. |
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Aug 9, 2018 15:11:45 GMT
Aj_June You seem to be arguing as follows: God does not change because God is perfect. God is perfect because God does not change.
Another reason God can't change is because God is akin to infinity in a monotheistic world. Add or subtract anything to infinity and it remains infinity.
That might make sense if the only property of God we were measuring was his "size" or "count", and that count were infinite. But there are many infinite sets that are different (a circle and a square both have an infinite number of points), and therefore it would be possible for one to change into the other. It's also worth noting that some infinite sets are larger than others, for example there are more real numbers than integers (see Aleph-naught). |
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Aug 9, 2018 16:03:05 GMT
FilmFlaneur One extra observation I will like to make - It is not just 3 Abhrahamic religion that claim to have logical, omniscient and all-powerful monotheistic Gods. Even religions such as Baha'I, Sikhism, Vaishnavism and Zorastrianism also claim to have one ruler who is omniscient. good, logical. The attributes of monotheistic Gods are nearly the same. I wonder if there was influence between the Abrahamic and non-Abrahamic religions. If not that might suggest an underlying inevitable universal principle to arrive at the same description of God (either because He/She/It exists or because of an unlearned common human psychological quality involved in the synthesis of these religions). On the other hand maybe "infinitely powerful supreme being" is an elementary and trivially natural direction for a religion to take. Sometimes things are blown out of proportion and conspiracy theories gain much attention. For example- There were quite a few scholars trying to create a case that Jesus visited India. I think such claims are totally far fetched and lies.
But there were two major interaction points in ancient world. Hinduism and Zoroastrianism seem to have evolved from people who either had very close relations or had common ancestor. I mean there are so many words, deities and customs same about them that their interaction and influence on each other can't be denied. I have zero doubts that Persians and Indians or other central Asians had lots of interactions.
Poisoned Dragon had sent me 2 or 3 links of very reputed scholarly works that commented on interactions of Zoroastrians and Jews and their influence on each other. of course a fanatic Jew or Parsi will deny it but considering the fact that Persians ruled over Israel for many centuries I have no doubt that both religions may have had at least some influence on each other. So it seems Zoroastrianism may be the one link common to both real east and middle east. Another point to note is that none of these religions have been monotheistic from the start. They evolved into monotheistic religions. I have lots of free time in next two weeks as I am off work till then. I might search a bit and make a topic on this issue.
|
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Aug 9, 2018 16:34:09 GMT
Aj_June The only authority we have is the authority bestowed upon us by...wait for it...the authority. Heck, some countries don't even allow ones to question authority. The reason why there is a remote possibility of knocking off someone is because we identify authority as a pillar of society run by humans. So to judge the notion of God being good on the bais of human limitations is a weird proposition to begin with. To be clear, that is all you're saying. Because we can not inflict damage on God like we can each other, then God cannot be defined. This is faulty reasoning. I still cannot comprehend why someone has a need to punish God based on a hypothetical that does not happen. I don't even know why authority is based on the count of punishment one can inflict. Maybe this is all addressed later. Another example of defining something on the basis of our view of an invented & illogical assumption. I don't agree with us having an intrinsic understanding of God. Clearly we don't. What we know of God in the Bible is what we learn about him. The definition did not come before him as if he had a role to fill. For example, let's pretend that eternal torment is a thing. By your argument, the existence of it would automatically be something a monotheistic God would do and thus we could not determine whether it was a good and that we automatically assume it was just. I say that the laws God has actually implemented are what define whether he or the law is good. Discord & disruption. I mistrust and hatred of things he does for his creation. Nearly his entire human creation on multiple occasions have abandoned the clearly better path of following him for momentary wants and then blame him for when things go wrong for their boneheaded actions. Even while that is happening, a large portion of his heavenly empire is rebelling against him as well. This has always put people that love him in greater danger and while we don't know how life works in heaven, his angels which he may have created and has known for untold and countless years are warring with each other as well. Now granted none of this means anything if you think the only thing that matters is that law is implemented, but since we have Scripture to go off of and only your word to the contrary (Again no basis for your statements beyond the statement itself), we know this things have a profound impact on God even if it stops shorting of your standard of killing him. I have no idea how you can make this conclusion. All God changing his mind means is that he is more than justice and perfection entails more than the justice component. Per Scripture God is move by justice, power or ability, love, & wisdom with love, not justice, as the primary motivator These qualities allow for change and is reflected almost immediately in Scripture (Genesis 3) and permeates throughout which is why it's so odd that you pretend it doesn't and have no interest in proving your misguided point. Are you telling me that I have real respect for historical figures? Do I have real respect for Napoleon, Stalin, King Tut, Caesar, Thomas Jefferson, etc... on the basis of them being historical figures I've heard of more than others? You put a caveat in there about excepting evil ones, but how do you have the right to determine who was evil? Greatness and good are not human qualities. They are qualities that humans can define particular actions, but we don't own the words. Well...I feel too tired now. I can match up your posts and write one but that would probably be a continous cycle. But because you posted the last post addressing my points I declare you the winner.  |
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Aug 9, 2018 16:41:45 GMT
FilmFlaneur One extra observation I will like to make - It is not just 3 Abhrahamic religion that claim to have logical, omniscient and all-powerful monotheistic Gods. Even religions such as Baha'I, Sikhism, Vaishnavism and Zorastrianism also claim to have one ruler who is omniscient. good, logical. The attributes of monotheistic Gods are nearly the same. I wonder if there was influence between the Abrahamic and non-Abrahamic religions. If not that might suggest an underlying inevitable universal principle to arrive at the same description of God (either because He/She/It exists or because of an unlearned common human psychological quality involved in the synthesis of these religions). On the other hand maybe "infinitely powerful supreme being" is an elementary and trivially natural direction for a religion to take. Also the other points you discussed is worth having a thread (Common human psychological quality). There are more similarities between between religions than it often believed. I believe because of use of the word "Pagan" many people of west have false or misleading information about religions such as Zoroastrianism and Hinduism. For example, I have never met a polytheist Hindu. A Shaivite will believe in Shiva and Vaishnav will in Vishnu or most Hindus will equate all gods as one much like Christians do through trinitarian concept. In reality most major religions mostly differ on path to attain salvation. Not on attributes of God. I will start a topic on this too. |
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Aug 9, 2018 16:57:50 GMT
I wonder if there was influence between the Abrahamic and non-Abrahamic religions. If not that might suggest an underlying inevitable universal principle to arrive at the same description of God (either because He/She/It exists or because of an unlearned common human psychological quality involved in the synthesis of these religions). On the other hand maybe "infinitely powerful supreme being" is an elementary and trivially natural direction for a religion to take. Sometimes things are blown out of proportion and conspiracy theories gain much attention. For example- There were quite a few scholars trying to create a case that Jesus visited India. I think such claims are totally far fetched and lies.
But there were two major interaction points in ancient world. Hinduism and Zoroastrianism seem to have evolved from people who either had very close relations or had common ancestor. I mean there are so many words, deities and customs same about them that their interaction and influence on each other can't be denied. I have zero doubts that Persians and Indians or other central Asians had lots of interactions.
Poisoned Dragon had sent me 2 or 3 links of very reputed scholarly works that commented on interactions of Zoroastrians and Jews and their influence on each other. of course a fanatic Jew or Parsi will deny it but considering the fact that Persians ruled over Israel for many centuries I have no doubt that both religions may have had at least some influence on each other. So it seems Zoroastrianism may be the one link common to both real east and middle east. Another point to note is that none of these religions have been monotheistic from the start. They evolved into monotheistic religions. I have lots of free time in next two weeks as I am off work till then. I might search a bit and make a topic on this issue.
There was also a monotheistic development in Egypt (pharaoh Akenaten worshiped the sun god Aten) that I've read is suspected to have influenced the Jewish form of monotheism. |
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Aug 9, 2018 17:07:01 GMT
Sometimes things are blown out of proportion and conspiracy theories gain much attention. For example- There were quite a few scholars trying to create a case that Jesus visited India. I think such claims are totally far fetched and lies.
But there were two major interaction points in ancient world. Hinduism and Zoroastrianism seem to have evolved from people who either had very close relations or had common ancestor. I mean there are so many words, deities and customs same about them that their interaction and influence on each other can't be denied. I have zero doubts that Persians and Indians or other central Asians had lots of interactions.
Poisoned Dragon had sent me 2 or 3 links of very reputed scholarly works that commented on interactions of Zoroastrians and Jews and their influence on each other. of course a fanatic Jew or Parsi will deny it but considering the fact that Persians ruled over Israel for many centuries I have no doubt that both religions may have had at least some influence on each other. So it seems Zoroastrianism may be the one link common to both real east and middle east. Another point to note is that none of these religions have been monotheistic from the start. They evolved into monotheistic religions. I have lots of free time in next two weeks as I am off work till then. I might search a bit and make a topic on this issue.
There was also a monotheistic development in Egypt (pharaoh Akenaten worshiped the sun god Aten) that I've read is suspected to have influenced the Jewish form of monotheism. Cool. Didn't know about this one. Might do a bit of googling on it. Egyptian ancient history is always interesting to read anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Aug 9, 2018 17:23:14 GMT
There was also a monotheistic development in Egypt (pharaoh Akenaten worshiped the sun god Aten) that I've read is suspected to have influenced the Jewish form of monotheism.
This is the weird thing about skepticism.It isn't really about doubting something and proving it wrong or true, it's largely about creating a fiction to justify the view of something being wrong.
There is no reason at all to think that God of the Bible (Both Judaism and Christianity since they are the same) was either an original concept or the one others copied or, since monotheism isn't an unusual concept, that they developed on their own.By pretending there is a link across all of them, this creates the OP need to create parameters that do not actually exist.
|
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Aug 9, 2018 19:49:59 GMT
There was also a monotheistic development in Egypt (pharaoh Akenaten worshiped the sun god Aten) that I've read is suspected to have influenced the Jewish form of monotheism.
This is the weird thing about skepticism.It isn't really about doubting something and proving it wrong or true, it's largely about creating a fiction to justify the view of something being wrong.
There is no reason at all to think that God of the Bible (Both Judaism and Christianity since they are the same) was either an original concept or the one others copied or, since monotheism isn't an unusual concept, that they developed on their own.By pretending there is a link across all of them, this creates the OP need to create parameters that do not actually exist.
Well, I could say the same thing about faith. Any rational questioning that might challenge cherished beliefs are met with the defensive accusation of "creating a fiction to justify the view of something being wrong". I think what the OP, I and others are doing here (in exploring connections between various monotheistic religions) is no different than what linguists do when their curiosity leads them to try to explain language similarities and propose common descent among languages. |
|
