• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Intelligent Design Proposes that God has an Ego[W24]

What is the purpose for the tree?

choice without choice free will cannot exist.

I wouldn't say it is done with ego.

for instance why does a husband and wife have kids?
the basic reason is that they want to share the love that they have with someone else that came from them.
that was created by them.

The same was with God.

if you look at the creation of man He created man in our image actually not his. he then created women.
he designed and created man to have the same relationship that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit share with each other.

it wasn't about ego.
 
choice without choice free will cannot exist.

I wouldn't say it is done with ego.

for instance why does a husband and wife have kids?
the basic reason is that they want to share the love that they have with someone else that came from them.
that was created by them.

The same was with God.

if you look at the creation of man He created man in our image actually not his. he then created women.
he designed and created man to have the same relationship that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit share with each other.

it wasn't about ego.

If that is true, why does it say that "Man and woman, he created them'??

Also, did you know that in the Hebrew, the term 'Holy Spirit' was feminine?
 
If that is true, why does it say that "Man and woman, he created them'??

Also, did you know that in the Hebrew, the term 'Holy Spirit' was feminine?

what does this have to do with anything I posted? nothing.
 
what does this have to do with anything I posted? nothing.

Why, yes it does. You were talking the relationship between The father the son, and the holy Ghost, and Man's relatinship with them, with apparently women being an afterthought.

I am pointing out yoru conceptions don't work in the language God used.
 
if we're referring to the god of the bible, then as man is made in god's imagine, and man includes a mind, and man's mind includes an ego, we can infer that god has an ego.

umm no this is a logical fallacy.
affirming the consequent could also be circular logic.
 
Why, yes it does. You were talking the relationship between The father the son, and the holy Ghost, and Man's relatinship with them, with apparently women being an afterthought.

I am pointing out yoru conceptions don't work in the language God used.

I never said women was an after thought.

God created man then he created women is what I said. you distorting what I said into something else is a fallacy.
 
I never said women was an after thought.

God created man then he created women is what I said. you distorting what I said into something else is a fallacy.

That doesn't seem to be what you are saying. I am glad you clarified that, since your wording appeared to imply that.
 
choice without choice free will cannot exist.

I wouldn't say it is done with ego.

for instance why does a husband and wife have kids?
the basic reason is that they want to share the love that they have with someone else that came from them.
that was created by them.

The same was with God.

if you look at the creation of man He created man in our image actually not his. he then created women.
he designed and created man to have the same relationship that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit share with each other.

it wasn't about ego.

You're misinterpreting the question: it's not about ego. The question is; does God have an ego? To read scripture, one draws a conclusion that God operates with an ego.

Interesting statement:
if you look at the creation of man He created man in our image actually not his.

If man wasn't here yet, and it's not God's image; who is "our"?
 
umm no this is a logical fallacy.
affirming the consequent could also be circular logic.

if you're going to call something a logical fallacy you need to explain why, logically. you cannot refute that 'god made man in his image', because it is in the bible. your only point of contention could be that the ego does not exist, but you need proofs for that as well, because current proof says that the ego does exist.
 
You're misinterpreting the question: it's not about ego. The question is; does God have an ego? To read scripture, one draws a conclusion that God operates with an ego.

Interesting statement:

If man wasn't here yet, and it's not God's image; who is "our"?

the term is called
https://carm.org/anthropomorphism-god-relates-us-human-terms

I already said who the US was in my previous post why are you asking something that is already there?
 
Your link is broken.

anyway the term is called anthropomorphism.
It basically means how God relates to humans and how the writers related aspects of God in their writings.

the attribution of human characteristics or behavior to a god, animal, or object.
 
anyway the term is called anthropomorphism.
It basically means how God relates to humans and how the writers related aspects of God in their writings.

the attribution of human characteristics or behavior to a god, animal, or object.

Yeah, I know what anthropomorphism is; it's a transfer of conscious thought to one who cannot communicate: the baby, the dog etc. If that be the case, then God really didn't say anything as the three main religions will have us believe. The writers of the books of the Bible have thus short circuited their own intent by engaging their egos to make points. Thus, is truly then the ego of man usurping God, or is it in fact God's true ego as translated directly from HIM onto paper?
 
Yeah, I know what anthropomorphism is; it's a transfer of conscious thought to one who cannot communicate: the baby, the dog etc. If that be the case, then God really didn't say anything as the three main religions will have us believe. The writers of the books of the Bible have thus short circuited their own intent by engaging their egos to make points. Thus, is truly then the ego of man usurping God, or is it in fact God's true ego as translated directly from HIM onto paper?

actually they haven't. God doesn't have an ego as you would imply he has a nature. that nature I how God addresses himself.
There was nothing short circuited or distorted or taken out of context.

It was written the way it was supposed to be written.
 
anyway the term is called anthropomorphism.
It basically means how God relates to humans and how the writers related aspects of God in their writings.

the attribution of human characteristics or behavior to a god, animal, or object.


Actually, Carms definition of the word is way off. It actually refers to man assigning human attributes to other things, which quite often might be God. Sometimes it is their pets. The way that Matt Slick uses the term is inaccurate.
 
Yeah, I know what anthropomorphism is; it's a transfer of conscious thought to one who cannot communicate: the baby, the dog etc. If that be the case, then God really didn't say anything as the three main religions will have us believe. The writers of the books of the Bible have thus short circuited their own intent by engaging their egos to make points. Thus, is truly then the ego of man usurping God, or is it in fact God's true ego as translated directly from HIM onto paper?

I don't think "ego" means what you think it means.

You keep using this term in ways that don't align with the way it is understood in the psychological community.
 
I don't think "ego" means what you think it means.

You keep using this term in ways that don't align with the way it is understood in the psychological community.

Can you elaborate?
 
I was giving the intelligent design theory a going over the other day and it occurs to me that - if man was created in HIS image, and HE has predesigned every move, the HE, like us must possess and ego: why else would HE "design"? For what purpose over all? Are we art? Spiritual heights notwithstanding, does God possess ego? If so, then what makes HIM better than you and I?

Thoughts?

Immortality.

Creativity.

Power.

Wisdom and knowledge.

That's what makes God(s) superior to us mere mortals, Lucifer.
 
Immortality.

Creativity.

Power.

Wisdom and knowledge.

That's what makes God(s) superior to us mere mortals, Lucifer.

Sure, but does God possess ego?
 
actually they haven't. God doesn't have an ego as you would imply he has a nature. that nature I how God addresses himself.
There was nothing short circuited or distorted or taken out of context.

It was written the way it was supposed to be written.

Okay. And what exactly - leads you to that conclusion?
 
I was giving the intelligent design theory a going over the other day and it occurs to me that - if man was created in HIS image, and HE has predesigned every move, the HE, like us must possess and ego: why else would HE "design"? For what purpose over all? Are we art? Spiritual heights notwithstanding, does God possess ego? If so, then what makes HIM better than you and I?

Thoughts?

Intelligent Design does not automatically mean, Biblical God. It's not meant to be the same as Creation.


Is intelligent design the same as creationism?
No. The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations.


Intelligent Design
 
Are you psychoanalyzing God, or man's self defeating version of God? This is the real question: ego is an earthbound necessary protection device, so does God, in your view suffer from it as well? Christians /Jews and Muslims would have us believe that he does.

Hawking can "invent" balls. He does not have the capacity to possess them, but his ability to dig has brought us much closer to what Einstein described as the consciousness of God.

If ego is an earthbound necessary protection device - what are you saying? What's that got to do with God?

If the Creator is omnipotent, why would He need any protection?


If God has an ego (whatever that is) - it wouldn't be the kind of ego that the human mind can fully comprehend.
Especially not anything like psycho-babble ego.
 
Last edited:
I'm going to pass on trying to psychoanalyze God. It would be, at best, like a pair of Labrador Retrievers trying to psychoanalyze Steven Hawking.


"Well Duke, I think it's because he doesn't have a ball. He wants a ball, so he keeps theorizing about round things, like stars and black holes."

"No, no, no, Spot, it's not about his ball at all. It's his inability to dig up BONES that motivates him..." :D

While I love the analogy's humor, dogs were not "made in Stephen Hawking's image", so it is an inherently flawed analogy. God did supposedly make us in his image. If a Dog were made in Hawking's image, it would presumably have a better understanding of Hawking's motivations, as the dog's brain would also be made in Hawking's image.
 
Back
Top Bottom