God and Human: Who has created Whom?

[h_k_s]

As a devout Christian, I believe God created Man. And I refuse to believe that we are just another animal.

Ha! My Catholic mother used the same preface ... "I refuse to believe", as if emotion mattered in the slightest. For Mum, the refusal was to believe that humans evolved from apes. Like the Elephant Man, she would entreat, "I am not an animal!".

But of course, we all are animals. Each of us, like any other animal, a small piece of the planet Earth, and we will return to it.

We are not only animals, but we are very much like other animals, the difference being about 1% genetically, but that 1% is important in terms of empowerment. Unlike other animal species, Homo sapiens has an extra ability.

Like other dominant species, our success comes from having this an extra capacity. Trilobites dominated the world because they were the first animals to enjoy good, clear vision. Dinosaurs were the first to employ terrifying power. Humans are the first species to be able to mentally project the future and recall the past. Mentally, humans are more temporally free, less locked into the moment (or at least we are after a few years - until then, our sentience is less than that of adults of other intelligent species, despite our claims to divinity from conception).

Humans, like other animals (and plants, fungi and bacteria) were created by the Sun, and then the Earth. The Sun was created by larger stars and, ultimately, you can be sure that somewhere in our past has been significant black hole activity.

There is certainly no reason to discard thousands of years of worldwide learning just to adhere to a Middle Eastern myth of two thousand years ago, only brought to popularity by Constantine. Why not a Chinese creed of a thousand years ago? Or an African myth of four thousand years ago? Do we really believe that the Middle East - godforsaken disaster zone that it is - is the holy land from which the only truth emanated? I see the Abrahamic creeds as far less sophisticated and grounded than the ideas of Buddhists and Taoists in the Far East.

I suspect that there are certain animals that are superior to humans in terms of their survivability in North America.

To wit:

black bears

coyotes

white tail deer

feral cats

[h_k_s]

I'll answer this right after I finish figuring out if we created the Cat in the Hat or whether the Cat in the Hat created us.

I would like to call the attention of all the SMART philosophers here to Aristotle's "prime mover," Aquinas' "first cause," Descartes' "greatest good," and Leibniz's "best as possible."

[h_k_s]

If you're interested, the philosophy of The Eagles can be explored further by considering the song "Take It Easy" as an interesting twist on Zeno's Paradox.

viewtopic.php?p=325401#p325401

Assume human beings have created God. In Christianity, they would call him The Lord. They become lambs to be guided by the shepherd. They prayed to him for help. Worse, they fall into the trap of original sin from which they cannot have salvation but for Jesus Christ. They have to repent their ways to accord with God' wishes. They must praise the Lord. In this respect, are we not prisoners of our own devise?

ass-u-me.

[h_k_s]

As a devout Christian, I believe God created Man. And I refuse to believe that we are just another animal. I wouldn't go so far as to ascribe to the philosophical notion that lesser beings are unconscious zombies, but I do think we humans are of a different ilk.

God came to us with the promise of a better place. Animals were never granted that honor because they are lesser creatures. Stronger and faster for sure, but not more superior.

Isn't this the attitude that lead humans to believe the world is there for them to use, and not to share with all the other living things who also call this place "home"? 😢

Yup.

[h_k_s]

Isn't this the attitude that lead humans to believe the world is there for them to use, and not to share with all the other living things who also call this place "home"? 😢

Lesser creatures (animals) are meant for three things and three things only. Number one: to be eaten. Number two: to be kept as pets. Number three: to serve us for our benefit, such as a horse to be ridden or a water buffalo for farming. There's also the case of blood leeches for medicinal usage. Dung beetles count too with whatever they do that's beneficial.

I believe that as long as we humans are not the source of torment for animals, we are free to eat them and subdue them. I need to make it clear to everyone that we are the premier beneficiaries of this planet. Our pets are not our children and shouldn't be treated as such.

And like I said, though I do not ascribe to the idea that animals are consciousless zombies, I do think they are LESSER CREATURES.

Some animals definitely should NOT be eaten.

To wit:

dogs

cats

ponies

horses

[h_k_s]

I offered this in a different thread but - I don't think it matters and I don't think it's available knowledge.

What we have around us are various strong forms of theism, which in the sense of the Abrahamic traditions these are really politics first - and that shows with how intertwined or similar political and formal religious behavior and identity tend to be. While I do find people like John of the Cross, Teresa of Avila, Boehme, Mansur Al Halaj, etc. interesting in the scope and style of their experiences (the Golden Dawn and A.'.A.'. ran full speed at the 'Knowledge and Conversation' model of personal inner-cosmology) are a very different thing than what most common Christians, Muslims, and Jews that I've met tend to believe. If anything this tends to progressively walk the Abrahamic symbol sets back toward something like a Daoist, Hindu, or Buddhist framework.

The key thing - if you're mystically inclined your encounters will be with yourself and they'll be built upon your relationship with yourself (Jung did a good job of unpacking this and I found John Vervaeke's conversations with Anderson Todd worth recommending for that). As for answers from the totality of the universe - good luck, if it actually does happen you may be the first person in history, maybe even the last, and that's also completely agnostic as to whether such attention wouldn't plant a super massive black hole where our solar system used to be.

Don't forget Deism !!!

[Prof Bulani]

God is a fictional character. As such, we can use our creative license to give God any characteristics and back story we want. Part of God's back story is that he created the universe and humans. There's no rule that says the author(s) of a fictional character has no right to do that.

[Steve3007]

Assume human beings have created God. In Christianity, they would call him The Lord. They become lambs to be guided by the shepherd. They prayed to him for help. Worse, they fall into the trap of original sin from which they cannot have salvation but for Jesus Christ. They have to repent their ways to accord with God' wishes. They must praise the Lord. In this respect, are we not prisoners of our own devise?

Yes, I agree that we could be said to be prisoners of our own device. But I suppose that could be said to be true of any self-imposed restrictions we place on ourselves, regardless of whether they're religious.

[gad-fly]

Oh, just about anything can be God. Love. Compassion. Justice. Consciousness. The universe. You name it. Heck, some are even claiming that Trump is God's vessel. You might as well add your latest idea to the list, which is not new either. As George Carlin et all have said, "We created god in our own image and likeness."

I agree that anything can be very liberally referred to as God. In the present context, let us focus on God in his assumed role as the CREATOR. Let us also take what George Carlin has said. The arising question: Who comes first? It can be a chicken or egg scenario. The menu can be either omelette or drumstick. May I have both, in such a lovely place?

[gad-fly]

God is a fictional character. As such, we can use our creative license to give God any characteristics and back story we want. Part of God's back story is that he created the universe and humans. There's no rule that says the author(s) of a fictional character has no right to do that.

I take you to mean that we create the fictional character of God. It goes without saying that we have the right to create him, but for what? For entertainment? For our helplessness? To placate our inferiority complex? Or because of our boredom with life?

[Prof Bulani]

God is a fictional character. As such, we can use our creative license to give God any characteristics and back story we want. Part of God's back story is that he created the universe and humans. There's no rule that says the author(s) of a fictional character has no right to do that.

I take you to mean that we create the fictional character of God. It goes without saying that we have the right to create him, but for what? For entertainment? For our helplessness? To placate our inferiority complex? Or because of our boredom with life?

We made up God as an explanation for phenomena we were ignorant of. We crave explanations, and abhor gaps in reasoning. God serves as a useful general purpose gap filling. Of course, as we become less ignorant of phenomena, made up filler becomes less useful.

[gad-fly]

We made up God as an explanation for phenomena we were ignorant of. We crave explanations, and abhor gaps in reasoning. God serves as a useful general purpose gap filling. Of course, as we become less ignorant of phenomena, made up filler becomes less useful.

We made up god for what we cannot explain. Since an atheist may not be better to explain, how does he fill up the gaps? It would be nice to know.

[Prof Bulani]

We made up God as an explanation for phenomena we were ignorant of. We crave explanations, and abhor gaps in reasoning. God serves as a useful general purpose gap filling. Of course, as we become less ignorant of phenomena, made up filler becomes less useful.

We made up god for what we cannot explain. Since an atheist may not be better to explain, how does he fill up the gaps? It would be nice to know.

A gap does not have to be filled with a made up explanation, and is actually better off if it is acknowledged as a gap.

[LuckyR]

As a devout Christian, I believe God created Man. And I refuse to believe that we are just another animal. I wouldn't go so far as to ascribe to the philosophical notion that lesser beings are unconscious zombies, but I do think we humans are of a different ilk.

God came to us with the promise of a better place. Animals were never granted that honor because they are lesser creatures. Stronger and faster for sure, but not more superior.

Really? And what of the all the gods that existed in the literature before Christendom? Were they inventions of man, or were they the true god?

[Sy Borg]

Oh, just about anything can be God. Love. Compassion. Justice. Consciousness. The universe. You name it. Heck, some are even claiming that Trump is God's vessel. You might as well add your latest idea to the list, which is not new either. As George Carlin et all have said, "We created god in our own image and likeness."

I agree that anything can be very liberally referred to as God. In the present context, let us focus on God in his assumed role as the CREATOR. Let us also take what George Carlin has said. The arising question: Who comes first? It can be a chicken or egg scenario. The menu can be either omelette or drumstick. May I have both, in such a lovely place?

If we are to ponder God as a creator, the first thing needed is to stop calling it "he". God is an it. Like a rock, a snail or some intersexed people. Now we can wonder whether energy/matter/stuff is fundamental, or if consciousness is. It appears that energy is most fundamental but, with consciousness being such a slippery concept, our impressions may be a perspective effect.

Given that a proto-chicken preceded both the chicken and the egg, I guess we can say that a proto-universe came first :)