Paganism vs One True God

This to me has always been so simple. I see paganism almost always by almost all persons of all persuasions or lack of persuasions compared to the one true god philisophy as though they are somewhat equal in that they are all about god or gods.

The thing to me that is gargantuanly different is that paganism, for the most part, personified or god-ified actual powers, ones that are real powers on this planet, basically earth, air, water, fire, the sun, and the moon, whereas the one true god philosophy creates a persona with no direct connection to an actual known power that acts on the earth.

So though for some reason it's generally considered in lower esteem than one true god religions these days by both those of religions and even atheists. I think it shows that they recognized more about the actual powerful influences in their lives, and simply didn't understand them and/or thought they could influence them in return. In the end, we are all pagans in a way like it or not.

We're the pagans that in fact have learned to influence related powers that at one time or anther were considered gods. Lightning...we have electricity, rain... irrigation, our usage of resources here on the planet are effecting weather and weather patterns (not all influence is intentional), the list is obviously becoming endless.

I guess I'm trying to point out is that paganism in a way is a precursor to science, encourages the idea of respecting (worshiping) the awesome powers that make this planet inhabitable as well as the hope to exert enough influence to control small portions of those immense powers.

People say that the developed world is or has been mostly Christian, but I can look around and know for sure, reality is based on paganism.

Summerwind said:

So though for some reason it's generally considered in lower esteem than one true god religions these days by both those of religions and even atheists. I think it shows that they recognized more about the actual powerful influences in their lives, and simply didn't understand them and/or thought they could influence them in return. In the end, we are all pagans in a way like it or not.

Click to expand...

My question to you is that why are you so sure that there isn't an all powerful God controlling the powerful influences that you feel in your life?

MildSteel said:

My question to you is that why are you so sure that there isn't an all powerful God controlling the powerful influences that you feel in your life?

Click to expand...

You mean keeping us on the ground with spaghetti tentacles?

joG said:

You mean keeping us on the ground with spaghetti tentacles?

Click to expand...

I mean the invisible hand that's pegging the yuan.

MildSteel said:

My question to you is that why are you so sure that there isn't an all powerful God controlling the powerful influences that you feel in your life?

Click to expand...

Because I have no evidence anywhere to support that claim. I do see evidence that the basis of pagan beliefs are real and do exist, even if they aren't likely to really be "gods," they are the true forces in our lives, on our planet, etc. We have wanted to influence them and we now do and will moreso every decade until we kill ourselves off.

MildSteel said:

My question to you is that why are you so sure that there isn't an all powerful God controlling the powerful influences that you feel in your life?

Click to expand...

A group of finite, powerful creatures that are born, breed, and die do not necessarily violate the laws of nature the way an all powerful god does. The obvious question of "where did this god come from?" creates either a paradox when that god has no origin, or defies its nature as all powerful if it has a beginning and end. Families of gods are essentially just powerful humans with magical abilities. They can still have a place within nature and its cycles. That is far more plausible than a single entity without an origin or any real place within a natural cycle.

MildSteel said:

I mean the invisible hand that's pegging the yuan.

Click to expand...

Ah! The Zillon little hands each too small to see.
Or were those the ones undermining the invisible one?

Summerwind said:

Because I have no evidence anywhere to support that claim. I do see evidence that the basis of pagan beliefs are real and do exist, even if they aren't likely to really be "gods," they are the true forces in our lives, on our planet, etc. We have wanted to influence them and we now do and will moreso every decade until we kill ourselves off.

Click to expand...

A few things can be said about that. A person who relies strictly on what can be perceived through empirical means as proof is relying on very imperfect mechanisms for understanding reality. For instance you cannot see if all of the light is taken from the environment. The world appears to be flat, although it is not. The point is that the power of our senses is limited and imperfect.

The next point is that many of the things that are within the realm of empirical understanding require a level of expertise and certain assumptions to understand. Just like you cannot see electrons. However, their existence has been verified by scientists, using assumptions like Coulomb's law, who have spent many years cultivating skills and knowledge in a certain area of expertise. Humans in general don't have the expertise to actually verify such notions. But we take it for granted and have faith that others who have that expertise are telling the truth. If we didn't do this, our knowledge would be limited indeed because we would have to spend quite a bit of time and resources trying to verify such things directly ourselves.

Lastly, you cannot prove that everything in that exists falls within the power of your mind and senses to perceive it directly. Now you may say that, it that case it does not matter. But actually it's possible that there could be something there, that is having a great deal of influence on you, that you simply cannot perceive, at least not with the present instruments that you have at your disposal.

Paschendale said:

A group of finite, powerful creatures that are born, breed, and die do not necessarily violate the laws of nature the way an all powerful god does. The obvious question of "where did this god come from?" creates either a paradox when that god has no origin, or defies its nature as all powerful if it has a beginning and end. Families of gods are essentially just powerful humans with magical abilities. They can still have a place within nature and its cycles. That is far more plausible than a single entity without an origin or any real place within a natural cycle.

Click to expand...

You cannot prove that there cannot be an all powerful God. Since you cannot do so, IF we assume that such a God does exist, then such a God would not be limited by the laws of nature. If such a God were, then that God would not be all powerful. And it's just as plausible because you have to have faith that nature or any of us exist. This because you cannot prove, at least not with the power of our empirical senses, mind, and intellect, that any of us or anything exists.

MildSteel said:

You cannot prove that there cannot be an all powerful God. Since you cannot do so, IF we assume that such a God does exist, then such a God would not be limited by the laws of nature. If such a God were, then that God would not be all powerful. And it's just as plausible because you have to have faith that nature or any of us exist. This because you cannot prove, at least not with the power of our empirical senses, mind, and intellect, that any of us or anything exists.

Click to expand...

Um.... Um... Doh!

and You can't prove I'm not god.
So is that a good reason to believe/"assume" I am?
Your posts in every section are nummbing.

mbig said:

Um.... Um... Doh!

and You can't prove I'm not god.
So is that a good reason to believe/"assume" I am?
Your posts in every section are nummbing.

Click to expand...

I can provide many good reasons for assuming that you are not. For example, you can't stop yourself from getting old and dying.

MildSteel said:

I can provide many good reasons for assuming that you are not. For example, you can't stop yourself from getting old and dying.

Click to expand...

Oh Yes I can.
I'm Never going to die.
Go head, Prove I will.
Duh! you Can't do that either!

See, same Goofy Paradox based on your absurdities.
You're about the most 'illogical' poster I've ever seen. (not allowed to use more precise language)

That's why
Flying Spaghetti Monster - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
was invented.
To show that god/ME is as believable as Any.

BTW, by arguing with me you're lowering your chances if getting into 'heaven'. (Free beer and sex)

mbig said:

Oh Yes I can.
I'm Never going to die.
Go head, Prove I will.
Duh! you Can't do that either!

Click to expand...

What I said was:

I can provide many good reasons for assuming that you are not.

Click to expand...

BTW, that's another reason to assume you are not, because you don't even know what was said in this thread.

MildSteel said:

I can provide many good reasons for assuming that you are not. For example, you can't stop yourself from getting old and dying.

Click to expand...

What if He just chooses to get old and die, merely to shed His mortal coil?

Jayhawker30 said:

What if He just chooses to get old and die, merely to shed His mortal coil?

Click to expand...

He isn't choosing that. That condition is being forced upon him.

MildSteel said:

You cannot prove that there cannot be an all powerful God. Since you cannot do so, IF we assume that such a God does exist, then such a God would not be limited by the laws of nature. If such a God were, then that God would not be all powerful. And it's just as plausible because you have to have faith that nature or any of us exist. This because you cannot prove, at least not with the power of our empirical senses, mind, and intellect, that any of us or anything exists.

Click to expand...

Why would we assume such an unlikely thing? Why would we assume anything without evidence?

But seriously, if you don't think objective evidence proves anything, then why bother having any debate at all? And why do you bother doing things like eating, since your senses apparently can't prove that you're alive or that not eating will kill you? Why look both ways when you cross the street, since your eyes will clearly not tell you for certain if there are any cars coming?

The "nothing is real" argument is pretty stupid. As is the "you can't prove that ____ isn't true" argument. But I'll even defeat that one. I'll make you the safe offer that I make to all theists. Define your god, and I will prove that it doesn't exist. Define some god whose existence matters, that interacts with us in some meaningful way, and I will prove that it's not real. No one has ever taken my challenge, except to try to argue some vague and nebulous god like "the source of goodness" or something like that. Such a deist position is completely irrelevant to our existence. Posit a relevant god, and I'll prove that it's not real.

Summerwind said:

This to me has always been so simple. I see paganism almost always by almost all persons of all persuasions or lack of persuasions compared to the one true god philisophy as though they are somewhat equal in that they are all about god or gods.

The thing to me that is gargantuanly different is that paganism, for the most part, personified or god-ified actual powers, ones that are real powers on this planet, basically earth, air, water, fire, the sun, and the moon, whereas the one true god philosophy creates a persona with no direct connection to an actual known power that acts on the earth.

So though for some reason it's generally considered in lower esteem than one true god religions these days by both those of religions and even atheists. I think it shows that they recognized more about the actual powerful influences in their lives, and simply didn't understand them and/or thought they could influence them in return. In the end, we are all pagans in a way like it or not.

We're the pagans that in fact have learned to influence related powers that at one time or anther were considered gods. Lightning...we have electricity, rain... irrigation, our usage of resources here on the planet are effecting weather and weather patterns (not all influence is intentional), the list is obviously becoming endless.

I guess I'm trying to point out is that paganism in a way is a precursor to science, encourages the idea of respecting (worshiping) the awesome powers that make this planet inhabitable as well as the hope to exert enough influence to control small portions of those immense powers.

People say that the developed world is or has been mostly Christian, but I can look around and know for sure, reality is based on paganism.

Click to expand...

I don't believe the world could develop naturally, if a God were too actively involved. It would be such a distraction and source of constant contention, that little would occur randomly, or as a result of free thinking. Look at how much religion has already impacted civilization, and that's with no lasting proof of divine interaction. Also, I don't believe a deity would want to force themselves on a people that were given free will, especially in a developmental (maturing personality) phase.

If there's a "One True God" or supreme being, I think things are happening the way this Being intended. We aren't suppose to know how everything works, yet. We learn, believe and stretch forth our knowledge over time, passing down our experiences and information to successive generations, building on civilization. Though to me, it's sad that science, technology and education has almost completely eradicated any notion that a superior conscious or universal intellect is even remotely possible, because of the need for empirical evidence. I think you have to believe first, before you know where and how to look, if you're really even interested?

Paschendale said:

Why would we assume such an unlikely thing?

Click to expand...

It's not unlikely, rather it is highly likely when you look around and observe the order and design that one could reasonably assume that an all powerful God was the cause.

Paschendale said:

Why would we assume anything without evidence?

Click to expand...

No one is saying accept without any evidence whatsoever. That is foolish. However, not all evidence is direct empirical evidence. Furthermore, there is not a branch of human knowledge that doesn't involve postulates and assumptions. In this case there is enough indirect empirical evidence to support the notion that it's possible that an all powerful God does exist. And as such there is no reason to not to try to understand things through a paradigm that makes the assumption that an all powerful God does exist.

Paschendale said:

But seriously, if you don't think objective evidence proves anything, then why bother having any debate at all? And why do you bother doing things like eating, since your senses apparently can't prove that you're alive or that not eating will kill you? Why look both ways when you cross the street, since your eyes will clearly not tell you for certain if there are any cars coming?

Click to expand...

I did not say that objective evidence does not prove anything. What I did say is that there is a limit to what can be understood through direct empirical evidence. And I also said that trying to understand reality through direct sense perception alone is not 100 percent reliable because our sense perception is limited and has faults.

Paschendale said:

The "nothing is real" argument is pretty stupid. As is the "you can't prove that ____ isn't true" argument.

Click to expand...

You have misunderstood what I said. I didn't say nothing is real. What I did say is that you cannot prove that you or anyone else exists with empirical means, much less being able to prove that God exists through such means.

Paschendale said:

But I'll even defeat that one. I'll make you the safe offer that I make to all theists. Define your god, and I will prove that it doesn't exist. Define some god whose existence matters, that interacts with us in some meaningful way, and I will prove that it's not real. No one has ever taken my challenge, except to try to argue some vague and nebulous god like "the source of goodness" or something like that. Such a deist position is completely irrelevant to our existence. Posit a relevant god, and I'll prove that it's not real.

Click to expand...

I gladly accept that challenge. Prove to me that an omnipotent, omniscient, ubiquitous God, who is the cause of all causes does not exist.

MildSteel said:

I gladly accept that challenge. Prove to me that an omnipotent, omniscient, ubiquitous God, who is the cause of all causes does not exist.

Click to expand...

Your definition doesn't include any interaction with us other than "causing all causes". So this god is completely irrelevant to our existence. I said to posit a relevant god, not a pointless deist one. But causing all causes yet not needing a cause itself, or causing itself, is paradoxical, and attaching those other qualities to it, especially anthropomorphism (which is implied by calling this thing a god, but not part of your definition) is unsupported by the rest of the definition.

Summerwind said:

This to me has always been so simple. I see paganism almost always by almost all persons of all persuasions or lack of persuasions compared to the one true god philisophy as though they are somewhat equal in that they are all about god or gods.

The thing to me that is gargantuanly different is that paganism, for the most part, personified or god-ified actual powers, ones that are real powers on this planet, basically earth, air, water, fire, the sun, and the moon, whereas the one true god philosophy creates a persona with no direct connection to an actual known power that acts on the earth.

So though for some reason it's generally considered in lower esteem than one true god religions these days by both those of religions and even atheists. I think it shows that they recognized more about the actual powerful influences in their lives, and simply didn't understand them and/or thought they could influence them in return. In the end, we are all pagans in a way like it or not.

We're the pagans that in fact have learned to influence related powers that at one time or anther were considered gods. Lightning...we have electricity, rain... irrigation, our usage of resources here on the planet are effecting weather and weather patterns (not all influence is intentional), the list is obviously becoming endless.

I guess I'm trying to point out is that paganism in a way is a precursor to science, encourages the idea of respecting (worshiping) the awesome powers that make this planet inhabitable as well as the hope to exert enough influence to control small portions of those immense powers.

People say that the developed world is or has been mostly Christian, but I can look around and know for sure, reality is based on paganism.

Click to expand...

I somewhat agree, and somewhat not.

In general Paganism, a consciousness is not the highest Power, a non personal magical realm is, that can be petitioned or used by Gods or shamans, and the such, Gods and men are subservient to it, in abrahamic faith a personal conssiousness is the highest Power, thus conscience goes above all, whereas in paganism Power is supreme.

In paganism nature is considered Divine, in abrahamic faith, nature is subservient to consciousness.

I would say market ideology is pagan, i.e. you have this amoral inpersonal Power that Controls everything and must be appeased (the market), which can be controlled by men and appealed to by men, and which is above all conscience, morality and everything.

At the same time the concepts of the individaul as having innate value, all men being Equal, a solidarity of all men, these are all ideas from abrahamic faith.

Zizek Writes a bit about this actually.

Paschendale said:

Your definition doesn't include any interaction with us other than "causing all causes". So this god is completely irrelevant to our existence. I said to posit a relevant god, not a pointless deist one.

Click to expand...

First of all, the attribute of being the cause of all causes, would make such a God totally relevant to our existence because ultimately , EVERYTHING would be caused by such a God, BOTH DIRECTLY AND INDIRECTLY. Indirectly in the sense that God ultimately directly causes the forces that are the cause of the forces that we directly experience. And directly because God's energy is in all things. It is like the sun and the sunshine. The sun is located millions of miles away, but at the same time it's energy can be felt in the form of the sunshine as heat and light.

Paschendale said:

But causing all causes yet not needing a cause itself, or causing itself, is paradoxical, and attaching those other qualities to it, especially anthropomorphism (which is implied by calling this thing a god, but not part of your definition) is unsupported by the rest of the definition.

Click to expand...

Your problem here is that you want God to fit into the narrow confines of the ability of your very limited mind to speculate and that's just not possible because everything that you have a capacity to understand has limits. And God simply doesn't have such limits. In this instance, you want to say that's it's impossible for God to not have a cause. But you cannot prove that it's impossible for God to not have a cause. All you can say is that is impossible for a human to perfectly conceive through the instruments that we have at our disposal for understanding reality. You have a mind, which interprets input from your senses, such as your eyes. That mind is different from the mind of an ape. The ape is simply not capable of understanding calculus. It's outside of it's mental and intellectual perimeters. In a similar way, your attempt to understand how God can be the cause of all causes and not have a cause is like an ape trying to understand perfectly calculus. That's not to say that an ape cannot understand some aspects of the mathematics associated with calculus. For instance you could teach an ape the difference between one banana and two bananas, and that is certainly a part of calculus. But an ape will never properly understand the concepts of limited differences, Cauchy's famous formal definition of a limit, integration by parts, etc. It's just not possible with the mind of an ape.

MildSteel said:

First of all, the attribute of being the cause of all causes, would make such a God totally relevant to our existence because ultimately , EVERYTHING would be caused by such a God, BOTH DIRECTLY AND INDIRECTLY. Indirectly in the sense that God ultimately directly causes the forces that are the cause of the forces that we directly experience. And directly because God's energy is in all things. It is like the sun and the sunshine. The sun is located millions of miles away, but at the same time it's energy can be felt in the form of the sunshine as heat and light.

Click to expand...

How are our lives different for this god existing and causing stuff than if it weren't there and things didn't require an intelligence to cause them? Everything about the definition you gave allows this god to simply be the electromagnetic force. No intelligence required. No need to call it a god. It's everywhere, affects everything, including the electrons that we can't properly measure due to uncertainty, and causes everything. You posited electromagnetic force, not a god.

If it's possible one exists - why is it impossible, or improbable that more than one exists?

Polytheism makes far more sense than monotheism.

Paschendale said:

How are our lives different for this god existing and causing stuff than if it weren't there and things didn't require an intelligence to cause them? Everything about the definition you gave allows this god to simply be the electromagnetic force. No intelligence required. No need to call it a god. It's everywhere, affects everything, including the electrons that we can't properly measure due to uncertainty, and causes everything. You posited electromagnetic force, not a god.

Click to expand...

First of all what I said was

Prove to me that an omnipotent, omniscient, ubiquitous God, who is the cause of all causes does not exist.

Click to expand...

So you missed the omnipotent, omniscient and ubiquitous part. I was trying to explain how the attribute of being the causes of all causes was relevant. It's relevant because God's energy is everywhere, therefore everything rests on God's energy. The sun's energy influences a tree to produce citric acid. The sun did not directly produce the citric acid, the tree did. But the sun's energy is present in the citric acid. And without that energy there would be no citric acid or the various molecular or atomic interactions that exist in the the citric acid. In a similar way, because God's energy is present everywhere, God is relevant because everything rests on that energy, including things that influence us directly like the wind, rain, rivers, oceans, and sun.

Next of all, electromotive force does not qualify because no one has been able to come up with a satisfactory explanation of how the phenomenon of sentience can be explained from simply the existence of an electromotive force. To do so, you would have to explain what exactly causes the integration the activity of the electromotive forces that exists between the electrons and protons to form the one unified phenomenon of sentience. And you just can't do it.

And lastly, your physics is not complete because there are other forces that have been observed other than electromotive force, i.e. you need more than Coulombs law to explain gravity and the strong and weak forces.

MildSteel said:

Your problem here is that you want God to fit into the narrow confines of the ability of your very limited mind to speculate and that's just not possible because everything that you have a capacity to understand has limits. And God simply doesn't have such limits. In this instance, you want to say that's it's impossible for God to not have a cause. But you cannot prove that it's impossible for God to not have a cause. All you can say is that is impossible for a human to perfectly conceive through the instruments that we have at our disposal for understanding reality.

Click to expand...

Telling us that our feeble minds cannot comprehend God, and then telling us with certainty that this God exists and how he's above our understanding. As you understand it.

Maybe you're not one of us humans. Are you an angel?