39 replies to this topic

[The Hypercube]

As Naivetry has bravely asserted,

I'm arguing that, if we assume that a god exists, mine is the most likely candidate.

I'd like to have a thread discussing precisely those reasons that one God is more likely to exist than another.
Anyone is free to argue for or against any deity with an ascribed personality, whether they personally believe in them or not. The only restriction I ask is that the existence of some type of God is a requirement, (for purposes of this hypothetical discussion). That way nobody can be accused of simply ignoring the evidence.

Edited by The Hypercube, 10 August 2008 - 10:45 PM.

[All of Man Kind]

Well God, the one from the Christianity, Islam, and Jewish religion, is the most likely candidate. For nearly 6,000 years he has been believed in by more than 1/2 the words population.

[the Philosophes]

Well God, the one from the Christianity, Islam, and Jewish religion, is the most likely candidate. For nearly 6,000 years he has been believed in by more than 1/2 the words population.

Volume does not equate with truth, only with volume. Just because more people believe it does not make it more true, only more believed.

I will, however, throw down on the side of a single entity, if one exists. A single all-powerful God makes more sense, if one is questioning the origin of God or Gods, than does the prospect of many; I find it easier to envision God coming into existence because it is in the nature of God to exist, in the "I am that I am" Biblical sense, than I do multiple deities arising simultaneously.

[Chaucerin]

I would submit that the god of war must be the one true god for the following reasons;

1. Among gods, warrior deities are ubiquitous and very likely the most common incarnations of divine beings. It can easily be argued that since we worshiped them all for the same reason, they are all the same god.

2. Civilizations both great and small have had a god specifically devoted to the cause of war. The Egyptians, the Greeks the Romans, the Norse etc… have all had prominent worship of the god of war. This is further evidence that the war god has appeared as many but is essentially one god. This also allows the war god to bridge the gap between polytheism and monotheism.

3. The god of war has remained essentially unchanged in its true identity and purpose despite the many superficial names and characteristics. Unlike logically tortured notions of a Trinity, the war god has been many gods, but has remained substantially unchanged. Humans have made many gods out of the one; this is our active participation in divinity. Again, this is a far more effective bridge between humans and the divine than the strained notion of a being both equally god and man; a logical impossibility.

4. Even in modern times, so-called gods of peace such as Yahweh/Jesus and Allah have been supplicated to in times of war. This demonstrates the supremacy of the war deity even in societies that claim not to recognize him. That we need to entreat gods for war, whose purpose is contrary to war is a clear indicator of the natural tie between humans and our god of war.

5. Other common gods such as gods of harvest or nature have waned into novelties or their function has been subsumed within the modern gods of peace; our advancements have made them obsolete. There is no conflict between their different purposes and they simply reflect collective well-wishing. Only the war god is still prayed to despite our outward change away from him Christians, for example, hypocritically claim to be on 'god's side' in a war even in this very present day). That the function of a war god has never been taken over, but is only attached poorly to modern peace gods shows us that the modern gods are false, and placed curtain-like over the true god; the god of war. While we have become better at farming and need a Gaia or a mother earth-goddess less, we still grow more skilled and efficient at war and still invoke divine power when fighting a war. The divinity of the war god is unique in this regard.

6. There have never been a people who have not made war, or at least prepared for it. This shows that the god of war is truly inherent to our being.

7. The strong human bonds among those who have fought acts as an external indicator of a numinous experience that certainly can only lead us to have some reasonable measure of certainty in the common bond created by the god of war. Further, feats of wartime bravery, skill and heroics have been documented verifiably despite challenging the limitations of mere human capacity. This is a clear demonstration of the intervention of the war god in our affairs.

8. The god of war is not necessarily required to be a god of creation, but his nature is such that the creation of an imperfect, violent cosmos full of violent, imperfect beings more perfectly fills his plans. This preserves free will, preserves the order of nature as we scientifically observe it and does not conflict with the god of war.

9. The god of war, being greater than a single name, time, language, creed or culture, is truly transcendent. This cannot be said for the modern gods of peace, who are all restrained by a current human tradition. The war god is not tapped by human theology or the protection of human institutions that claim to worship a genuine god.

10. Other gods are constantly being blamed for wars, atrocities and destruction even though it is incompatible with their supposed nature. Even now, violence in the name of a god is a common and even expanding phenomenon. This is an affront to the false gods of peace, but in perfect keeping with the precepts of a war god. It is not that Christianity and Islam are being abused and maligned by the violent – it is that the violent and extreme best represent the will of divinity. Our best religious reflection is found in our god of war.

So to summarize, the war god is;

- most common in function
- most consistent in identity
- most in line with real human nature
- most accommodating to scientific truth
- most unaffected by time, geography and cultural change
- most effective at bridging the gulf between humans and the divine
- most effective at bridging the gap between poly and monotheism
- most necessary since all people have war as a constant threat
- most well manifested in the exceptional actions of warriors and the unique bond between them (as opposed to supernatural myths and fictitious miracles)

Edited by Chaucerin, 11 August 2008 - 12:35 PM.
didn't paste point #10

[The Monkye]

I think Man is the best god of man. Once our technology develops far enough I think that we will acquire most of the things necessary to be considered God-Like, and even now I believe we have the makings of being God's.

Who better to be deity's of us than ourselves?

[Chaucerin]

I think Man is the best god of man. Once our technology develops far enough I think that we will acquire most of the things necessary to be considered God-Like, and even now I believe we have the makings of being God's.

Who better to be deity's of us than ourselves?

It's a tautology; man is the best god for man because man is man. You can state that man is god because of what we can do, but that will always and never be true.

When did we become god? 1960 or 1215? What were before then? If we regress because of a new Dark Age will we cease to be gods?

Just doesn't hold water. War God is the way to go.

[All of Man Kind]

I think I'm the most plausible God.

I promise salvation if you believe in me.
I've appeared to many people and am physically tangible.
I am capable of contacting my followers (and do so often).
Science can't contradict me.
I'm in line with human nature.
I'm unaffected by time, geography, etc. seeing how I'm physically on Earth.
I bridge the gap between divinity and humanity by spending time on Earth.
Anyone who doesn't believe in me has been banished to another realm.

[Chaucerin]

I think I'm the most plausible God.

I promise salvation if you believe in me.
I've appeared to many people and am physically tangible.
I am capable of contacting my followers (and do so often).
Science can't contradict me.
I'm in line with human nature.
I'm unaffected by time, geography, etc. seeing how I'm physically on Earth.
I bridge the gap between divinity and humanity by spending time on Earth.
Anyone who doesn't believe in me has been banished to another realm.

No association with divinity. No tradition of worship.

Good effort, though

[All of Man Kind]

I think I'm the most plausible God.

I promise salvation if you believe in me.
I've appeared to many people and am physically tangible.
I am capable of contacting my followers (and do so often).
Science can't contradict me.
I'm in line with human nature.
I'm unaffected by time, geography, etc. seeing how I'm physically on Earth.
I bridge the gap between divinity and humanity by spending time on Earth.
Anyone who doesn't believe in me has been banished to another realm.

No association with divinity. No tradition of worship.

Good effort, though

Foolish mortal, I have been worshipped throughout the eons by my small sect of followers. Bow before my might and worship me or (Insert cryptical threat about eternal damnation in the afterlife).

[Chaucerin]

Bow before my might and worship me or (Insert cryptical threat about eternal damnation in the afterlife).

Now that sounds godly - but War God would clean your wheels.

[The Hypercube]

This thread wasn't meant to be a joke.
I meant this for purposes of discovering which specific God is most likely. Chaucerin, you have a good case, so why not take it one step further? Which God of War is the most likely or truest manifestation?
Or, for the non-war types, how is Yahweh more likely to be the "real" God than Krishna, for instance?

[All of Man Kind]

Bow before my might and worship me or (Insert cryptical threat about eternal damnation in the afterlife).

Now that sounds godly - but War God would clean your wheels.

You're right, the War God does clean my heels. The War God is merely a humanly manifestation of my right hand, I use it upon the world and opposing armies when I'm angered. I am the one true supreme being in the universe. Bow before my might.

Edited by All of Man Kind, 14 August 2008 - 02:13 AM.

[tarricoe]

Well to step in before Chauce, I'd say Ares, he embodied violence and in bravery war. Which IMO is a greater human-god connection than a Strategetic war diety such as Athena.

He also acted in a resonably human way. None of that throwing lightning bolts and defeating earth serpents stuff. Well usually anyway.

[Chaucerin]

Bow before my might and worship me or (Insert cryptical threat about eternal damnation in the afterlife).

Now that sounds godly - but War God would clean your wheels.

You're right, the War God does clean my heels. The War God is merely a humanly manifestation of my right hand, I use it upon the world and opposing armies when I'm angered. I am the one true supreme being in the universe. Bow before my might.

This is all well and good, but serious theists make cases based on history, transcendentalism, trans cultural appeal and a whole host of other things - personal appeals to divinity have none of this; you lack the historical and cultural bona fides to make the list.. Sadly, none of them have bothered to make a case for the god of Christianity or whomever else.

Well to step in before Chauce, I'd say Ares, he embodied violence and in bravery war. Which IMO is a greater human-god connection than a Strategetic war diety such as Athena.

He also acted in a resonably human way. None of that throwing lightning bolts and defeating earth serpents stuff. Well usually anyway.

Ares would be a fine iteration of the War God, as long as it is understood that he was merely one guise that the War God took. Ares is no longer worshiped and is effectively useless as a divine anchor to anyone. The more general War God is still appealed to by different names and occurs both before and after Ares in the historical record. Further, Ares had a limited reach; the War God has been appealed to in every corner of the world.

Think of Ares as a regional brand for War God.

[The Hypercube]

I think that War God needs a less generic sounding name, though.

As for Ares, there are many War Gods that have more destructive weapons than him...come to think of it, there are many governments that have more destructive weapons than him.

Oh, and I have had 3 worshippers at one point who called me God. Does that count?

Edited by The Hypercube, 16 August 2008 - 05:55 PM.

[All of Man Kind]

Oh, and I have had 3 worshippers at one point who called me God. Does that count?

yes

[The Hypercube]

Well, that makes me the most plausible God, since I am actually typing a sentence on a computer. Let's see your God do THAT!

Edited by The Hypercube, 19 August 2008 - 11:20 PM.

[All of Man Kind]

Well, that makes me the most plausible God, since I am actually typing a sentence on a computer. Let's see your God do THAT!

Sorry, I already beat you to it.

[The Hypercube]

Ah, but as Chaucerin rightly countered to your claim,

his is all well and good, but serious theists make cases based on history, transcendentalism, trans cultural appeal and a whole host of other things - personal appeals to divinity have none of this; you lack the historical and cultural bona fides to make the list..

...
In your case you didn't have anyone who agreed with your personal claim. Since I had worshippers, and an empirically probable existence, I still top the list. Oddly enough, my vice-savior's title was "The Hand of God".
And, given that in another incidence, a member of the Yupik tribe exclaimed to her sister, "Can't you see he's a God??!", that would also count as cross-cultural appeal.

Edited by The Hypercube, 24 August 2008 - 03:55 AM.

[Chaucerin]

Ah, but as Chaucerin rightly countered to your claim,

his is all well and good, but serious theists make cases based on history, transcendentalism, trans cultural appeal and a whole host of other things - personal appeals to divinity have none of this; you lack the historical and cultural bona fides to make the list..

...
In your case you didn't have anyone who agreed with your personal claim. Since I had worshippers, and an empirically probable existence, I still top the list. Oddly enough, my vice-savior's title was "The Hand of God".
And, given that in another incidence, a member of the Yupik tribe exclaimed to her sister, "Can't you see he's a God??!", that would also count as cross-cultural appeal.

No cultural impact -with so few worshipers, or no worshipers you are either deluded or (at best) a local cult. Having friends who are easily impressed does not make a god - there would need to be a culture of faith over generations to ba taken seriously.

War God still wins.

[The Hypercube]

He still needs a better name.
Even "War God" implies that his bailiwick is only within the confines of war--far from being omnipotent or omnipresent.
Aren't there any Gods that fit those descriptions?

[tarricoe]

Khrone?

[Chaucerin]

My view is that since war is probably the most common thing we do both as individuals and as communities, War God cannot be given a single name - War God has been a thousand gods in a thousand cultures.

Giving War God a name defeats the purpose.

[Some emo guy]

I personally think that the Chirstian God is the true god, He has many forms (For Joshua and Moses (more Joshua) He was the war god, For the Apostles he was the peace god, For every one He is the creating God and for Every one He will be the saveing god and the Ending god) and so this would make Chirstian god the most likely and belivable god for like us he can be many things.

[tarricoe]

An all-gods-rolled-into-one God is less believeble to me. As it to be the end of the evolution of the patriarcal sky God, Zeus, Odin and Marduk all had many traits associated with them. war, creation, [Although not the original] being the Kings of the other Gods, storms etc. Features that Jaweh of the old Testament has.

In the Hebrew old testament, God has two different names and refers to himself in plural. In the English version he has two names "God" and "The Lord" although those Latin/Germanic words don't preserve the meanings. Even within the religion the diety shows his roots quite clearly.

[Chaucerin]

There is nothing less impressive than the Patriarch God - found numbly in every pantheon standing at the head and severed from human affairs.

Christianity had to embrace polytheism to bridge the gap -- and don't even go near the Trinity...you don't want to have that argument.

[All of Man Kind]

There is nothing less impressive than the Patriarch God - found numbly in every pantheon standing at the head and severed from human affairs.

Christianity had to embrace polytheism to bridge the gap -- and don't even go near the Trinity...you don't want to have that argument.

The Trinity is 3 parts to one God.

[Chaucerin]

There is nothing less impressive than the Patriarch God - found numbly in every pantheon standing at the head and severed from human affairs.

Christianity had to embrace polytheism to bridge the gap -- and don't even go near the Trinity...you don't want to have that argument.

The Trinity is 3 parts to one God.

That's theological gibberish.

[The Hypercube]

So you don't just see that as a simplified expression of "All-gods-rolled-into-one-God"?
Why is it gibberish in one instance and logical (if not hypothetical) necessity on the other?

To all who believe that the "Christian" creator God is the supreme one:
If he can have many attributes, don't you also think that it is just a slightly different facet that Buddhists, Gnostics, or Muslims are seeing? If not, why not? If so, are you prepared to admit that your version is on more or less equal ground, due to the fact that none have more credible evidence than the other?

Are Yahweh and Allah just different facets of the same God? What makes one more plausible than the other?

Edited by The Hypercube, 28 August 2008 - 02:13 AM.

[The Monkye]

According to what I want to take out of Chauce's arguments, I'd say that the oldest and most numerically popular religion's god would be more plausible. Out of these two, the oldest is Yahweh and the most numerically popular Allah according to my calculations. which is conflicting, and hence surely I've just shown that Chaucerin's measure of plausibility not usable.

*Prepares to be blown apart by a Chauce Attack*

And to have a second dig at the whole most plausible god thing, I choose the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Empirical evidence clearly leans towards his existence, as does common sense and other important economists.

[The Hypercube]

I agree, although it is written in jest, The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster actually does corner the market on logical plausibility. It's kind of sad that of all Gods through all time, the one with the best case for existence is actually a joke.

[tarricoe]

Double Toast

Edited by tarricoe, 29 August 2008 - 10:13 AM.

[tarricoe]

According to what I want to take out of Chauce's arguments, I'd say that the oldest and most numerically popular religion's god would be more plausible. Out of these two, the oldest is Yahweh and the most numerically popular Allah according to my calculations. which is conflicting, and hence surely I've just shown that Chaucerin's measure of plausibility not usable.

Since both are in many cases used as War Gods, I'd say it's a decent measure.

Although the Christian God is the most popular, and he too in many cases is a war God, and in many cases not at all. Also the worship of other male Sky Gods extends back much farther than Yahweh, and mother Goddesses farther than that. Unless you meant the oldest continually worshiped.

Edited by The Monkye, 29 August 2008 - 09:22 AM.
Monk fixed the quotation up for you

[The Monkye]

yes, I guess it would be continually worshipped Tarr, but I was actually referring to out of just Yahweh and Allah, ignoring the other gods as Yahweh and Allah were the subject of the converation. In any case my limited knowledge of the subject says that Yahweh is the oldest continuously worshipped god, though I am open to being proven wrong.

[tarricoe]

Woops, that made sense to me when I re-read it. Well they are different versions of the same God, both of their following groups use versions of the old testament text for information on the Diety. There is little difference (to my knowlege) between the nature of the two.

If all War Gods are only one despite the difference between them, then these two being the same would make just much sense.

So, Single Original Male Creator Sky God gets to be both very old and very widely believed. Points on for that. Points off for still being pretty unique compared to "War God".

[tarricoe]

OUT DOUBLE POST DEMONS, OUT!

Edited by tarricoe, 30 August 2008 - 11:55 AM.

[The Hypercube]

So, Vishnu wouldn't have a longer track-record?
I'd wager that given the population of India, he's pretty high up there for # of worshippers too.

[tarricoe]

According to the fountain of all knowlege, Wiki. Hindu is slighty older. That's the best source I got.

Edited by tarricoe, 30 August 2008 - 11:26 AM.

[The Monkye]

So Vishnu is a plausible God, but others like Ganeesh and Krishna aren't? Surely in a polythiestic religion, all the gods, not just one of them, would have to exist. But the need for multiple gods defeats the purpose of debating which one god is the most likely to exist, and also the need for them all to exist diminishes each individual god's likelyhood of existance, does it not?

[The Hypercube]

Well, between Vishnu, Krishna and Ganesha, Shiva, Bramha, etc., it's really up to who you ask, I guess. Vaishnavas would treate Vishnu as the supreme, or with Krishna being the actual personality, but thinking more about it (yes, I'm quite slow on these sort of things), I've come to the following conclusion:
THEY ALL LOSE.

• If a supreme being created us, he (yes, he definitely must have a penis, right?) created everything and does not personally care about our every move
• He does not communicate directly--if he thought like we do, and had infinite power, he could make his existence obvious, even without breaking the known laws of physics.
• Because, even if he has some kind of consciousness or personality, it is NOTHING like what we could relate to, therefore:
• Since he has an incomprehensibly foreign consciousness, any claim to communicating with him is folly.

I am completely ready to defend all of the above statements through logic and evidence, or look silly trying.