Author Topic: RE  (Read 626 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Dale Eastman

  • Owner of myself and this website
  • Administrator
  • Promiscuous Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,005
  • Reputation 0
  • This space for rent
    • Synaptic Sparks
« on: September 14, 2020, 04:36:28 PM »
'It seems more accurate to say "God was created in -our- image to be everything we are, only without any of our limitations."'

Looking at the same universe, I do not see a creator.

"Because it's turtles all the way down."

Or in other words, "Who created the creator?"

I don't think one needs to solve the mystery of who created the creator in order to investigate the nature of the creator.

Properties of the creator?
As in: Investigate the properties of the creator.
At some point the creation of the creator must be investigated also.

For example: Investigating the properties of a sheet of glass. It's hard. It's fragile. It fragments upon overstress. How it fragments is different between tempered glass and untempered glass. I will assume there is no marking on the glass, so whether it is or is not tempered is not known. Only different glass fragments differently. And then there is this odd shaped bowl looking glass. Now imagine you know nothing of float glass or glass blowing.

So the first question is: What is the creator being examined? What, exactly, is meant by the creator?

What does/ did the creator create? IMO, this is akin to asking what did the glass blower create? What did the window glass factory create?

Just to be sure we don't have an equivocation error in the discussion/ analysis.

I can easily investigate the nature and reason of the one whom created the glass piece without being concerned regarding whom created that creator.


I have no problem tossing aside the question of the creator's uber creator in order to examine the properties of the creator.

Quoting the OP:
God was created in -our- image to be everything we are, only without any of our limitations.

And just to make sure we are discussing the same "creator"...

What did this creator we are examining create?

That has yet to be clarified. Why is a creator considered to be a "god"?

➽ That has yet to be clarified.

Indeed it does.

Kudos for a presenting a point that I really had to think about.
Said point causing me to consider if I misinterpreted what you intended with what you previously wrote.

➽ Why is a creator considered to be a "god"?

IMO, Excellent question!

Correct my assumption if wrong:
I am assuming, based upon theological, ahem... Concepts (defined as abstract ideas or general notions that occur in the mind, in speech, or in thought) in the societies of humans, that god is a living entity and "believed" to be the creator of the universe.

Why considered to be god? IMO, Reification.

"Reification (also known as concretism, hypostatization, or the fallacy of misplaced concreteness) is a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete real event or physical entity. In other words, it is the error of treating something that is not concrete, such as an idea, as a concrete thing. A common case of reification is the confusion of a model with reality: "the map is not the territory"."

"The consideration of an abstract thing as if it were concrete, or of an inanimate object as if it were living."
« Last Edit: September 15, 2020, 08:48:07 AM by Admin »
Natural Law Matters