I used to care a lot what you were saying, but considerably less so now.Interesting, I usually come at forum members from the opposite direction. I discount everything till I start finding something interesting posted, but too many times I don't. I appreciate critical thinking on any issue. I try to do this myself. But I respect anyone who believes they have something important to say or ask. If it is of (my) interest, I always give the poster the courtesy of attention, before I confirm or destroy their arguments with facts.
If Mike and Write are speaking, does anyone care?Well, excuse meeeeeeeeeee...... Enthrall us with your knowledge and acumen . If you think I am wrong, correct me if you can. I welcome a healthy debate on the issues. But don't undermine Mike's or my posts by insinuation. It's a veiled ad hominem and it doesn't become you. I used to care a lot what you were saying, but considerably less so now. It's excuuuuuse me, and sorry if my insult was veiled, I meant it to be quite clear. There's no debate here. You're doing theology. That's where you talk about how people misinterpreted things in the past. It has nothing to do with skepticism or inquiry. And who are you to tell me what I can undermine? You have gone completely off the intention of the OP. Start your own thread, preferably on a website that welcomes discussion about "the word".
If Mike and Write are speaking, does anyone care?Well, excuse meeeeeeeeeee...... Enthrall us with your knowledge and acumen . If you think I am wrong, correct me if you can. I welcome a healthy debate on the issues. But don't undermine Mike's or my posts by insinuation. It's a veiled ad hominem and it doesn't become you. I used to care a lot what you were saying, but considerably less so now. It's excuuuuuse me, and sorry if my insult was veiled, I meant it to be quite clear. There's no debate here. You're doing theology. That's where you talk about how people misinterpreted things in the past. It has nothing to do with skepticism or inquiry.
theology, NOUN The study of the nature of God and religious belief.
And who are you to tell me what I can undermine? You have gone completely off the intention of the OP. Start your own thread, preferably on a website that welcomes discussion about "the word".If you can undermine someone's argument with facts, you're welcome to try. Undermining by ad hominem will get you a warning from the mods. If the intention of the OP is a religious discussion on the history and facts of God's Image, I suggest that CFI is the wrong forum for that. If you do not expect to be challenged on the very premise of the term "In God's Image", you are mistaken and I would suggest CFI is the wrong forum for you. If you want to know about origins of religious concepts, I'll be happy to try and contribute to any discussion of the natural history and demographics of the origins of God. I would probably learn a lot about humanity in the process. But lets not start the debate with a restriction on discovering the properties of a "guiding condition" which is common to and experienced by all things and Humans gave it the name (the word), God(s), but what does that even mean? If we call Evolution = God (creator), then we can also call Natural Selection = Demon (destroyer), they ARE just words and we also have confirmed that spiritual words are always subjective metaphors for otherwise unexplainable things. The psychology of the subject is fascinating, but spiritual philosophy is allegorical and should not be in conflict with facts. If God exists as more than an implaccable source of energy with infinite potential, it must be logically explainable. So, Lauston, what does "In God's Image" mean to you?
That's where you talk about how people misinterpreted things in the past.I used to ask women if they wanted to go in another room and have Oral Sex. I would get some strange looks till I said, "You know, that's where you sit around and talk about it."
If you can undermine someone's argument with facts, you're welcome to try. Undermining by ad hominem will get you a warning from the mods. If the intention of the OP is a religious discussion on the history and facts of God's Image, I suggest that CFI is the wrong forum for that. If you do not expect to be challenged on the very premise of the term "In God's Image", you are mistaken and I would suggest CFI is the wrong forum for you.What? I'm not trying to undermine you, I'm saying you aren't presenting arguments. The intention of the OP is not religious. I said that. And you're right, CFI WOULD be the wrong forum that. So stop having a religious discussion. I suggested no premise, so what mistake are you talking about?
I’m still waiting for an answer to my question, what your interpretation of the OP title is.
I'm still waiting for an answer to my question, what your interpretation of the OP title is.I'm still telling you it was a sarcastic comment and not much else needs to be said about it.
About what? This is not your thread and you do not place limits on what can be discussed.
Sarcasm is not really enlightening to anyone else. but hey, if it makes you feel more intelligent, go with it.
Let’s see who is interested in your creative approach to the OP question.
Write4 U, I just now found time to check out the web sites in post #63. I kind of get the idea where you are going with the Potential. Now I am going to have to say I disagree to the connection of “The Word" and “Potential". It would take me sometime to fully understand all that is involved with “Potential".
What little that has been dug up on earth clearly shows us that man evolved.
The pre-history stories that have been passed down say that first the earth was make from stardust, then there was man, then there was god. Therefore, going down this road neither, “The Word" or “Potential" will fit.
What does fit? Change the early meanings of the words and I mean early meaning before the Age of Deities. If you make “God" mean “knowledge" and “create" mean “domestication". Then the stories works quite nicely. Remember in the older stories the midwife created up to twelve Adams. Was each one different? Or why would you need twelve?
But, the big kicker is, when you do this, then man himself ends up being domesticated.
So the big question is, will the studies on DNA come to this conclusion? And if it does, how will the people accept this change? All the reports coming out so far are positive in making this hypothesis work.
If a word is spoken in a forest and no one is around to hear it, is it a word? Lois;)That's good. I like it. __________________________________ As for the rest of all this, what I'll never get is how people get so consumed with interpreting and counter-interpreting these ancient texts - what about living and understanding today based on the accumulated knowledge of that past couple millennia?
As for the rest of all this, what I'll never get is how people get so consumed with interpreting and counter-interpreting these ancient texts - what about living and understanding today based on the accumulated knowledge of that past couple millennia?That is exactly what is trying to be accomplished. The past couple of millenniums may be a bad example because of the Dark Ages. And what is trying to be pointed out at this time is that mankind's datum point over the millenniums has been drive by one major item. And that is heaven, or a form of continuing life. Before mankind had gods or hell, there was always heaven. And it is still with us in some religions yet today. this post is just scratching the surface, kind of dancing around some major issues mankind has been wanting to find the answers to. For example, we talked about the red ochre burials going back 80K years. What we don't know and would like the answer to. Was the red ochre burials for domesticated man? You know "Dust to dust". And the sky burials were for none domesticated man. You get the idea! Just some friendly talk and a cup of coffee is the goal. Religion - Wikipedia A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence. Many religions have narratives, symbols, and sacred histories that aim to explain the meaning of life, the origin of life, or the Universe.
Write4 U, I just now found time to check out the web sites in post #63. I kind of get the idea where you are going with the Potential. Now I am going to have to say I disagree to the connection of “The Word" and “Potential". It would take me sometime to fully understand all that is involved with “Potential". What little that has been dug up on earth clearly shows us that man evolved. The pre-history stories that have been passed down say that first the earth was make from stardust, then there was man, then there was god. Therefore, going down this road neither, “The Word" or “Potential" will fit. What does fit? Change the early meanings of the words and I mean early meaning before the Age of Deities. If you make “God" mean “knowledge" and “create" mean “domestication". Then the stories works quite nicely. Remember in the older stories the midwife created up to twelve Adams. Was each one different? Or why would you need twelve? But, the big kicker is, when you do this, then man himself ends up being domesticated. So the big question is, will the studies on DNA come to this conclusion? And if it does, how will the people accept this change? All the reports coming out so far are positive in making this hypothesis work.Just a quick response to highlighted paragraph, for now. Yes, the stories do fit if given human values, but that is circular thinking, IMO. But consider this, If you make God to mean Bohm's fundamental universall" Insight Intelligence" and "The Implicate" means Potential, then Creation becomes "The Explicate" or expression in reality. You see it fits nicely AND it is in objective scientific language, not subjective human metaphor. The problem with terms like "knowledge" and "domestication" is that they are already subjective human terms and when we do that we are creating God in our image, i.e. we are intelligent, therefore god must be intelligent. Is knowledge God? Is domestication Creation? Or are knowledge and domestication results of the universal creative process? I am coming from the view that the condition (Insight Intelligence) and inherent creative abilities (Potential) are strictly mathematical constructs and as such could at best form a type of pseudo-intelligence (similar to a pre-programmed computer). At this point we can drop other subjective human terms which assign human qualities to the Insight Intelligence. This is not necessary in the hierarchical orders of the natural creative process. i.e. creation is a purely deterministic evolution from: Insight Intelligence (energy) -> Potential -> Implicate -> Explicate. IMO, this concept is so elegant and scientifically accurate, that I have not yet found a better analogy to the creative process of the universe. But it changes the phrase "man is made in god's image", to "man is the expression of universal potential". This was just in haste and I'll wait until you are a little more familiar with David Bohm's work. Note that he was very interested in Deistic philosophies, which propose an "implaccable creative force".
If a word is spoken in a forest and no one is around to hear it, is it a word? Lois;)That's good. I like it. __________________________________ As for the rest of all this, what I'll never get is how people get so consumed with interpreting and counter-interpreting these ancient texts - what about living and understanding today based on the accumulated knowledge of that past couple millennia? I agree, but if half of that accumulated knowledge is based on a false premise, it is not worth much in scientific terms. Of course it has other values. But talking about a falling tree making sound when there is no one to hear. IMO that question is based on human experience of sound only and totally ignores that the wave function is a fundamental property of the universe to which everything in the universe responds in one way or another, thus the word is heard by all things and all things respond to it. If we change the question to "if a tree fals and there is no one to hear can a rock still feel the vibrations of the associated wave functions?". The answer to that of course is yes. Sound is a subjective experiential translation of sound waves. This reminds me of a movie I saw recently. It is call "Frequencies". It is a simple Sci-Fi love story but it is set in a society where people are matched by their frequencies and people with low frequenciy are considered incompatible with people with high frequency, until these two meet and by touching can alter each others frequencies. It's really interesting.
I don’t recall if I have shown this link before but it bears a second look.
It explains a lot of what I am so inadequately trying to say.
Getting a clearer picture now on where you are coming from. And I think we might be able to understand our points of view here. First, let’s look at “God". What was god before the Age of Deities? So far there are only two items that “God" could have been. One is a name for a group of people. And the other is a term for knowledge. Both having intelligence. What you are suggesting is, these theories that are trying to answer the question of the universe and that are all without intelligence. In other words, they work how they work by the laws of science. And cannot be changed by thought or intelligence. Then in a deeper form of thinking, which I don’t understand, you are saying intelligence is somehow controlled by the universe.
So, yes the earth could have been created by this “Potential" I guess. But this Potential still would not have anything to do with the God or the type of creation we are talking about. Unless you are faith based thinking, then in that case God created “Potential".
The problem with terms like “knowledge" and “domestication" is that they are already subjective human terms and when we do that we are creating God in our image, i.e. we are intelligent, therefore god must be intelligent.
Let’s deal with this idea stated. Yes, god did end up in man’s image. And look at the Egyptian handling of knowledge, one of the older religions that we have a lot of data on. God was “knowledge" and when you wanted to know something you prayed to god and god sent you the answer “knowledge" by sunlight. So again you are right, God controlled the intelligent. But remember this is a god from the Age of Deities, and not the same god as in the creation.
Is knowledge God? Is domestication Creation? Or are knowledge and domestication results of the universal creative process?
This to me is apples and oranges. As our thinking of “God" was at different levels of thought. So is our ideas of “Creation" that we are talking about. The oldest Genesis stories stated that the earth was made from stardust. And that mankind may never know how the universe was formed or created. So far they have been right. But what you are trying to do here is answer that question of how the universe was formed. And the creation I am talking about is nothing more that mankind learning to control nature. For example, a guy has black cattle and he wants to have his cows grow a white stipe around their bellies so he can tell his cows from his neighbors’ cows. He then creates the belted cow. This is a form of domestication. Dogs are another good example.
MO, this concept is so elegant and scientifically accurate, that I have not yet found a better analogy to the creative process of the universe. But it changes the phrase “man is made in god’s image", to “man is the expression of universal potential".
Now take where the midwife made man. Remember man already was here and the midwife was man. The story calls them upper gods. Then remember the older systems were class systems where you were at one of four levels in sociality. Was the midwife doing nothing more than the guy that created the belted cow or the guy that breed a new type of dog?
I have to agree with Lausten, what you are trying to cover should be in its own post. But I see where you are trying to connect the image of god with the creation of the universe. Your thinking is strictly scientific theory and very little about religion. The gods we are talking about here came along in history after everything had been created/formed. And were written about in the Age of Deities where the gods were upping each other.
Mike Yohe, So, yes the earth could have been created by this “Potential" I guess. But this Potential still would not have anything to do with the God or the type of creation we are talking about. Unless you are faith based thinking, then in that case God created “Potential".Not really, in metaphysics, the potential for a causal force (God) would have to exist prior to the existence of a causal force. Actually, the concepts of God and Potential are exactly the same, with a subtle distinction. One is a spiritual concept of a motivated causal force (God) and the other is a scientific concept of an implaccable latent condition of possible specific causal action. (Potential). The first can only be addressed in spiritual language of metaphor, the other in the language of science. IN the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. BEFORE the beginning the potential for the creation of the heavens and the earth was already present in a latent form. Thus if we propose that God also existed BEFORE the beginning, then God is the (subjective) spiritual equivalent of the (objective) metaphysical existence of Potential.
IN the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
BEFORE the beginning the potential for the creation of the heavens and the earth was already present in a latent form.
The potential for the story that god created heaven and earth is not science. Because that is a story that has evolved. Just like Santa Clause. So I would have to say that is a bad example to explain your thinking.
The first can only be addressed in spiritual language of metaphor, the other in the language of science.
I disagree. The oldest stories were not using metaphors. They were quoting facts. It is in our translations that we are having trouble understanding the facts.
Now you are talking about “causal force". Being god. I don’t see how “causal force" can be a name for a group of people or for the meaning of knowledge.
Potential in Wikipedia.
Potential generally refers to a currently unrealized ability. The term is used in a wide variety of fields, from physics to the social sciences to indicate things that are in a state where they are able to change in ways ranging from the simple release of energy by objects to the realization of abilities in people. Examples include:
In linguistics, the potential mood
The mathematical study of potentials is known as potential theory; it is the study of harmonic functions on manifolds. This mathematical formulation arises from the fact that, in physics, the scalar potential is irrotational, and thus has a vanishing Laplacian — the very definition of a harmonic function.
In physics, a potential may refer to the scalar potential or to the vector potential. In either case, it is a field defined in space, from which many important physical properties may be derived.
Leading examples are the gravitational potential and the electric potential, from which the motion of gravitating or electrically charged bodies may be obtained.
Specific forces have associated potentials, including the Coulomb potential, the van der Waals potential, the Lennard-Jones potential and the Yukawa potential.
In electrochemistry there are Galvani potential, Volta potential, electrode potential, standard electrode potential.
In thermodynamics potential refers to thermodynamic potential.
A glass has the potential to hold water, once that glass is broken the potential is gone. In what we are talking about, the God of the earliest Genesis we know of had the potential to domesticate animals, fruit, vegetables, nuts, and man. Now that they (the gods in Genesis) are gone, so is the potential.
What I understand you are saying is the potential is there. Example. Put a pen on the paper and you can write any letter you want. If the pen and paper doesn’t exist then there is no potential. Trying to say that is an act of god or that is what god is, then everyone has the ability to be god.
I have to disagree first that god as a deity exists, second any of that type of science controlled by man would be magic, not science.
IN the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. BEFORE the beginning the potential for the creation of the heavens and the earth was already present in a latent form. The potential for the story that god created heaven and earth is not science. Because that is a story that has evolved. Just like Santa Clause. So I would have to say that is a bad example to explain your thinking. The first can only be addressed in spiritual language of metaphor, the other in the language of science. I disagree. The oldest stories were not using metaphors. They were quoting facts. It is in our translations that we are having trouble understanding the facts.Cite me a factual and scientifically correct observation in our earliest attempts to make sense of what we see and experience.
Now you are talking about “causal force". Being god. I don’t see how “causal force" can be a name for a group of people or for the meaning of knowledge.No, I believe I expressed doubts about Potential being a causal force. I maintain that Potential is a latent quality, which MAY or MAY NOT become expressed in reality.
Potential in Wikipedia. Potential generally refers to a currently unrealized ability. The term is used in a wide variety of fields, from physics to the social sciences to indicate things that are in a state where they are able to change in ways ranging from the simple release of energy by objects to the realization of abilities in people. Examples include: In linguistics, the potential mood The mathematical study of potentials is known as potential theory; it is the study of harmonic functions on manifolds. This mathematical formulation arises from the fact that, in physics, the scalar potential is irrotational, and thus has a vanishing Laplacian — the very definition of a harmonic function. In physics, a potential may refer to the scalar potential or to the vector potential. In either case, it is a field defined in space, from which many important physical properties may be derived. Leading examples are the gravitational potential and the electric potential, from which the motion of gravitating or electrically charged bodies may be obtained. Specific forces have associated potentials, including the Coulomb potential, the van der Waals potential, the Lennard-Jones potential and the Yukawa potential. In electrochemistry there are Galvani potential, Volta potential, electrode potential, standard electrode potential. In thermodynamics potential refers to thermodynamic potential. A glass has the potential to hold water, once that glass is broken the potential is gone. In what we are talking about, the God of the earliest Genesis we know of had the potential to domesticate animals, fruit, vegetables, nuts, and man. Now that they (the gods in Genesis) are gone, so is the potential. What I understand you are saying is the potential is there. Example. Put a pen on the paper and you can write any letter you want. If the pen and paper doesn’t exist then there is no potential. Trying to say that is an act of god or that is what god is, then everyone has the ability to be god.But you are missing several points here. First I am not saying anything about "acts of God", nor did I say "acts of potential" I am trying to explain only what I understnd Bohm to say. A metaphysical superposition of potentials, which result in the epression of at least one of inherent potentials as Implied in the prevailing environment. When water is ice, its ability to be a liquid or a gas remains latent. When water is liquid, its ability to be a gas or a solid remains latent, When water is a gas, its ability to be liquid or solid remains latent. This of course can be observed when water alternately becomes solid, liquid or a gas. It has the potential to be all three, but NOT at the same time.
I have to disagree first that god as a deity exists, second any of that type of science controlled by man would be magic, not science.I see no difference in our conclusions. I am in total agreement wih you. Remember, I'm an atheist. My use of the words God and Deity were in context of the thread title. I do not personally subscribe to either, though the implaccable condition in Deism is much closer in concept to the concept of Potential than a motivated intentional supernatural CAUSAL force in Theism. God did not create the universe. The potential for a universe existed and in the absence of time it was Inevitable that our universe would be created just as it did. However, this does not exclude the possibility that other universes with different laws from also being created. But that is an unknowable.
You know, when I started studying the bible the first thing you read is the story of creation. It is setup to create the foundation of the religion and tone of the bible by selling you the idea that this god is the most powerful object known to mankind. It took me several months to get the first couple of pages read. That was because I wanted to fully understand what I was reading. And it took me years to understand religion. What helped me most was using timelines.
There are several Genesis stories. The one that’s in the bible I do not agree with or believe. But the older Genesis stories I do agree with. They were before the Age of Deities. So they were not selling anything. They were just telling a story. And when the older stories were talking about god. It had to mean something entirely different. Because the Age of Deities had not yet started.
The experts at the church know this. So, they must also know that they have been committing the biggest fraud in mankind’s history. It is no wonder that our forefathers separated state and church.
So how do you tell your neighbors and family members that the image of God they have is not correct?
With only two percent of the world being atheists and a total of fourteen percent none believers in religion. Religion is here to stay for a long time yet.
One of my timelines shows that as far back as we can go, there has always been heaven. A wanting for after life. And this is a long time before deities were created. Thus mankind needs/wants afterlife, but does not really need a god. Thus if you can control afterlife with a judge (god), then you can control the people. Before that people judged themselves. People knew that if they were not good. Then when they were reborn from heaven to live again another life on earth, they would be in a lower class.
And in the stories handed down, there are no wars talked about. It must have been a better system for people to get along.
As far as the universe, we don’t even know what is outside of the universe. Maybe trillions of other universes. Let’s not worry about it and leave a few mysteries for our kids. :lol:
IMO, the concept of god requires a brain capable of abstract thought. And this ability may have already been present in the first hominids, even before modern (domesticated) man. I may have cited this earlier, but it bears repeating.
In our present studies of chimpanzees (our closest hominid cousins, but not yet homo sapiens) we discovered that they have a sense of unknown forces beyond their control.
The researchers observed an Alpha chimp during a monsoon, with thunder, lightning, and heavy rain. While all the other members of his family sat huddled together under the bushes, he picked up a stick and ran around the clearing, waving the stick into the air (where the threat was coming from) and beating the bushes and ground to warn this unseen threat to his family to back off and stay clear from his troup.
Eventually the monsoon would stop and I can imagine the Alpha walking around with pride having repelled the unknown force that threatened his family. IOW, he performed a Shamanistic rite to a God (unknown force).
When modern man acquired the ability for verbal communication (story telling), these feats were passed on verbally, but at that time real knowledge was extremely limited, and these unknown forces were attributed to god of thunder, god of lightning, god of rain. This is not proof of insight into the nature of these events but of observing the physcally experiential events without knowing their real cause… And this then led to the concept of god ordered miracles.
This remained true even when we learned to write the earliest scriptures about the nature of the gods. And because everything on earth is subject to the natural forces of climates, these individual accounts all paralelled each other in most respects. They were based on common subjective visual, physical and emotional experiences. Later still, these unrelated scriptures were refined and compiled into a single book, the earliest bibles.
And then came the revelation that these multiple gods must be subject to a single controlling force and God was born from imagination. This is advanced thinking, but scientifically inaccurate because we just had no access to Physical Science, and might be considered early Theoretical Science, which is a product of thought, not proof of fact.
For thousands of years viruses were considered demons. The story goes that during the building of the pyramids rations of garlic were a daily staple, in order to ward off the demons of disease. We still use this concept in our stories of vampires.
When a garlic crop failed, these rations were cut back and in protest the workers staged the first recorded labor strike in history. Garlic was sacred to them. This record exists from a royal scribe who duly noted the strike.
Thus while the concept of disease was already very old, the causes were attributed to God as punishment, Demons as the executioners, and Angels as redeeming life savers.
With the evolution of the sciences these attributes were put in proper perspective, but the ancient beliefs persisted, just as they still do today. Even I, as atheist, still use the expressions, “thank god” and “oh lord”. These terms are pervasive in our collective memory and their compassionate intent is understood by all.