Monotheism and Minds: Why Monotheism Is Untenable

[LMNO]

I'm pretty sure you guys brought the assumption of Judeochristianity with you; the argument seems to be independent of the source of claims of a monotheistic deity. Also it seems to seriously be saying "A monotheistic deity could never evolve naturally" and um.

Yeah.

Perhaps all we can say is, "that was a fairly confusing post."

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

BrotherPrickle, I don't know if I need to point out everything that's wrong with your thesis, but among the multitude of fallacies it contains is the assumption that language is necessary for thought.

I'm a little cringey at your sweeping declaration about the definition of God, for that matter; you seem to be using a very European definition ("God is Mind preceding Matter") that is probably bogged down in your own cultural context. You might be interested in knowing that Europeans often considered Native Americans "godless" not because they worshipped the wrong god, but because they were unable to recognize Native American spiritual figures as "gods" by  their definition at all.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I'm pretty sure you guys brought the assumption of Judeochristianity with you; the argument seems to be independent of the source of claims of a monotheistic deity. Also it seems to seriously be saying "A monotheistic deity could never evolve naturally" and um.

Yeah.

Perhaps all we can say is, "that was a fairly confusing post."

I didn't find it confusing so much as written around several questionable assumptions.

1. God must necessarily mirror human evolution
2. Thought requires language
3. "God" is defined as existing prior to matter

[Nephew Twiddleton]

I'm pretty sure you guys brought the assumption of Judeochristianity with you; the argument seems to be independent of the source of claims of a monotheistic deity. Also it seems to seriously be saying "A monotheistic deity could never evolve naturally" and um.

Yeah.

Perhaps all we can say is, "that was a fairly confusing post."

I didn't find it confusing so much as written around several questionable assumptions.

1. God must necessarily mirror human evolution
2. Thought requires language
3. "God" is defined as existing prior to matter

I agree. Other animals think without what we define as language and I'm sure some extraterrestrials would also object to the notion.

[LMNO]

Hm.  Good point.  I was having trouble linking the three parts together into a coherent thesis, so I took the assumptions as a given to ease the way.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

As far as thought preceding matter, it ignores a monotheistic model where a God may be an emergent entity.

[hooplala]

Is it fair to point out that the OP openly admitted they were spitballing?

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Is it fair to point out that the OP openly admitted they were spitballing?

Totally fair. But that's also the point in discussing it.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Is it fair to point out that the OP openly admitted they were spitballing?

That's totally fair. And I'm not picking on him, I just thought the floor was open for discussion so I'm pointing out the flaws in his reasoning. Which he might find useful, or again might not, up to him.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Is it fair to point out that the OP openly admitted they were spitballing?

Totally fair. But that's also the point in discussing it.

Jinx

[Nephew Twiddleton]

Is it fair to point out that the OP openly admitted they were spitballing?

Totally fair. But that's also the point in discussing it.

Jinx

Great minds, lol

[hooplala]

Oh hell yes, that's the point of spitballing.

I just know that when I toss that phrase around, I am usually warning people that what I'm about to say hasn't been completely thought out in advance.

Carry on!

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

And a Mind speaking by itself does not make any logical sense. Polytheism would have to result, which can be seen in the concept of Elohim, the plural form of God, in Genesis. Talking to yourself makes more sense when you're purely Mind, and able to split up without it being seen as socially transgressive. Hell, it leads to CREATING society.

The specific example given was Abrahamic.

Yes. It was an example. It seems to have been a bit of a blinding one, too.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Oh hell yes, that's the point of spitballing.

I just know that when I toss that phrase around, I am usually warning people that what I'm about to say hasn't been completely thought out in advance.

Carry on!

So does that mean you DON'T want people to pick apart your half-thought-through ideas and tell you what's wrong with them?

What's the benefit in even posting them, if that's the case?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Myself personally, if I have a half-assed idea and I'm trying to figure out whether it can be developed into a full ass, I will often toss it on the table and see if there's anything left after the shreddable bits have been shredded.