Welcome to Atheist Discussion, a new community created by former members of The Thinking Atheist forum.

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
My God Zoo
#1

My God Zoo
When dealing with the subject of God, we seem to have a problem with theists in defining God.  One of the little ideas I have had is the concept of the God Zoo.  a collection of various definitions of Gods and related ideas that have been believed by man over the ages.  From simple folk beliefs to the most sophisticated theologians.  The God zoo is not about various God, Yahweh, Zeus, Brahma, Odin et al.  It is about the different kinds of God that have been invented by mankind over the ages.
This is for me, a work in progress.  I am posting a version of my God Zoo here for fun and to see if anybody else has anything to add to my little zoo.  Have fun.

--------------------------------------------------------

God Zoo List.

1.  Omni-everything creator Gods
     Gods that create all, and are omnipotent, omniscient and
     omnibenevolent
2.  Super Omnipotent Gods.  Presuppositionalist, TAG Gods
     Descartes in his letters to Mesennes states that God
     creates the laws, the very logic of the Universe.  God then
     creates everything, including all metaphysic necessities,
     not just the material Universe.
3.  Simple God     
4.  Impersonal
5.  Perfect being theology Gods
     Anselm of Bec states that God is perfectly good.  If some
     things are good, some things are better than good and God
     is supremely good.  This line of reasoning was adopted by
     Aquinas as a proof of God's existence, proof by degrees.
     God then has all good attributes to the penultimate degree.
     God has all perfections.
6.  Demi-urges
     God that do not create the material of the Universe, but
     arrange it for their own purposes.   Plato's Timaeus
     hypothesizes a demiurge type God.
7.  Material Gods
     God of the atomists, Epicurus.  Nothing exists except
     atoms and the void.  So if gods exist, they must be
     material Gods.  The God of the Stoics simularly was a
     material God.  Though not necessarily of the material we
     are familar with.
8.  Primordial Chaos
     Many early theologies start with a primordial chaos that
     emanate the first Gods.   Hesiod's theologny.  Early
     Egyptian creation myths.  Sometimes it is primordial seas.
     There are no Gods to start with.  Matter preceeds the Gods.
9.  Panentheism. Process Theology, Open Theology Gods.  Panentheism
     God does not have omniscience, or omnipotence.  The
     material Universe is part and parcel of God, not seperate
     from God.  Part of the invention of Process theology by
10   Metaphysical Gods.  Ground of being and other sophisticated formulations.
11.  Deist Gods
12.  Idealist Gods
13.  Pantheism
14.  Maya Gods.
15.  Dualist Gods
16.  Polytheism
17.  Lesser divine beings
18.  Supernatural beings
19.  Fairies, leprechauns et al
20.  Ghost, poltergeists et al.
Plunk your magic twanger Froggy!   Boinnnnnng!  Hiya Kids!  Hiya! Hiya!



The following 3 users Like Cheerful Charlie's post:
  • Alan V, Phaedrus, Gwaithmir
Reply
#2

My God Zoo
21.  All gods that exist only as a neurological dysfunction of the human brain.
I'm a creationist;   I believe that man created God.
Reply
#3

My God Zoo
God is whatever they want it to be at any particular moment.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
Reply
#4

My God Zoo
What people want is a perfect being God. A God that is omni-everything, creates all, a maximal God. Underlying all reality is God, there is nothing outside and beyond God. This is more or less the God of billions. Few people think about what that entails, and the problems these claims make. In the end, Their God is incomprehensible, inscrutable. The gap in which anything can be stuffed, so as to avoid thinking about any of this and admitting just how weak the idea of God is.
Plunk your magic twanger Froggy!   Boinnnnnng!  Hiya Kids!  Hiya! Hiya!



Reply
#5

My God Zoo
God of thunder and rock and roll?
Reply
#6

My God Zoo
(04-09-2020, 10:21 AM)no one Wrote: God of thunder and rock and roll?

You mean the Great and Powerful Eleven?
  [Image: pirates.gif] Dog  
Reply
#7

My God Zoo
(04-09-2020, 10:25 AM)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: You mean the Great and Powerful Eleven?

Nope.....    Lemmy.
I'm a creationist;   I believe that man created God.
Reply
#8

My God Zoo
(04-09-2020, 01:07 PM)SYZ Wrote:
(04-09-2020, 10:25 AM)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: You mean the Great and Powerful Eleven?

Nope.....    Lemmy.
He qualified for that title. Thumbs Up
  [Image: pirates.gif] Dog  
Reply
#9

My God Zoo
The goddess stands apart from all!

[Image: girl-velvet.jpg]
[Image: color%5D%5Bcolor=#333333%5D%5Bsize=small%5D%5Bfont=T...ans-Serif%5D]
The following 1 user Likes Dom's post:
  • adey67
Reply
#10

My God Zoo
Supernatural being, Fairies, etc, exist. They are called Jinn in Quran but I would never equate them in reverence to God the Absolute being nor do they come close to his chosen ones in power let alone God.
Reply
#11

My God Zoo
(04-09-2020, 01:25 PM)Link Wrote: Supernatural being, Fairies, etc, exist. They are called Jinn in Quran but I would never equate them in reverence to God the Absolute being nor do they come close to his chosen ones in power let alone God.

"When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me."
No gods necessary
The following 1 user Likes brunumb's post:
  • Dom
Reply
#12

My God Zoo
https://www.theatlantic.com/internationa...es/280783/

...
Though Jónsdóttir’s belief in elves may sound extreme, it is fairly common for Icelanders to at least entertain the possibility of their existence. In one 1998 survey, 54.4 percent of Icelanders said they believed in the existence of elves. That poll is fairly consistent with other findings and with qualitative fieldwork, according to an academic paper published in 2000 titled “The Elves’ Point of View" by Valdimar Hafstein, who now is a folkloristics professor at the University of Iceland. “If this was just one crazy lady talking about invisible friends, it's really easy to laugh about that,” Jónsdóttir said. “But to have people through hundreds of years talking about the same things, it’s beyond one or two crazy ladies. It is part of the nation.”

Jacqueline Simpson, a visiting professor at the University of Chichester’s Sussex Centre for Folklore, Fairy Tales, and Fantasy in England, said references to the word alfar, or elf, first appeared in the Icelandic record in Viking-era poems that date back to around 1000 AD. The older texts do not divulge much about what the elves do; they mainly focus on the activities of the gods. The more elaborate stories cropped up in the folklore of the 16th and 17th centuries and have ripened with age.

The elves differ from the extremely tiny figures that are typically depicted as assistants to Santa Claus in popular American mythology. And unlike the fairies of Britain and other parts of Europe, Icelandic elves
live and look very much like humans, according to Simpson and other experts. “You’ve got to get right up close before you can be sure it is an elf and not a human,” said Simpson, who began studying Old Icelandic in her undergraduate days and later compiled a book full of Icelandic legend translations. When elves are spotted, they are typically donning “the costume of a couple of hundred years ago,” when many of the stories really came alive.
......
Plunk your magic twanger Froggy!   Boinnnnnng!  Hiya Kids!  Hiya! Hiya!



The following 1 user Likes Cheerful Charlie's post:
  • Dānu
Reply
#13

My God Zoo
I thought this thread was going to be about Noah's Ark.
The following 1 user Likes jerry mcmasters's post:
  • Unsapien
Reply
#14

My God Zoo
Nope. It is about the many various kinds of gods man has invented over the millennia. And what the problems with each are. And why many lack any sign of evidence. And why many of the grand gods of Grand Theology seem to utterly collapse if we take their claims seriously and examine them in the cold light of rational thought, reason and critical thinking. Since Xenophanes, the God concept has grown every more grander, greater and ever more rococo. Yet, today, ravenous hordes of sophisticated theologists battle each other to define this God to avoid the many logical problems such concepts exhibit. Some try to find radical ways out, Process theoloy, Spinoza's pantheism, et al. This God zoo idea is to try to make sense of this all, to map it all out and to understand where theology gets these ideas, and why once accepted, no amount of logical problems seems to kill bad ideas. Since many theists get shy when asked, what God are you trying to tell us all about, we have to do it for them. So we might as well be thorough about all of this. Why should I believe in your god, but not fairies? We end up with sophisticated theologians like Plantinga, but end up with the Great Pumpkin Problem. How does your god differ from Linus' belief in the great pumpkin? Why accept your special pleading but not Linus's?
Plunk your magic twanger Froggy!   Boinnnnnng!  Hiya Kids!  Hiya! Hiya!



Reply
#15

My God Zoo
After a bit of thought, I decided to add souls to my list. It is an important idea in the religious world to consider.

So, my list now rreads
17. Lesser divine beings
18. Souls, spirits
19. Supernatural beings
20. Fairies, leprechauns et al
21. Ghost, poltergeists et al.
Plunk your magic twanger Froggy!   Boinnnnnng!  Hiya Kids!  Hiya! Hiya!



Reply
#16

My God Zoo
On spirits. During the mid 1840's three sisters, the Fox sisters, started playing tricks on their mother. Mysterious rappings, noises and alleged communications with spirits of departed persons. This wild and woolly phenomenon swept the nation in the form of Spiritualism, Spiritualist churches, fake mediums and silliness. For a century, Spiritualism spread far and wide throughout the world. Many people took all of this very seriously. Of course skeptics appeared and attempted debunking it all. Because the very best manifestations of spirits were from mediums who were total fakes, debunking these women became something of a world wide sport. To counter this, 'scientific' organizations formed to demonstrate that contact with spirits was not just fakery and fraud. Importantly, it was felt that finally, the claim that our spirits lived on after our bodily death could be demonstrated once and for all.
Spirits became to be for many an important scientific issue. The problem was that over time, these scientific paranormal societies could not demonstrate any such thing. and the fraudulent mediums were debunked thoroughly and with great fanfare. Houdini, the stage magician made debunking mediums a national crusade, and he wasn't the only one by any means. College students following Houdini's lead started "Ghost Grabbing", attending mediums churches with flash lights in their pockets, catching the mediums and their stooges red handed. Undercover police bunco squads did the same. By world war 2, spiritualism and mediums all but died. So did the hoped for scientific demonstration of spirit life after death.

Today, all of this has been all but forgotten, but the important fact is, science could not demonstrate spirits existed, but did manage to demonstrate massive fruad, fakery and cons relying on people's wishes to believe did exist.

So much for spirits. Spiritualism did in fact exist in little pockets here and there well into the early 70's. Parapsychology shifted over to things like Robert Rhines esp experiments and picked up with the era of Uri Geller, and has much faded since though woo merchants such as George Noory's Coast to Coast radio program still peddle remote viewing and other supposed parapsychology proofs. The killer experiment that establishes spirits to really exist does not exist, despite many attempts to demonstrate that.
Plunk your magic twanger Froggy!   Boinnnnnng!  Hiya Kids!  Hiya! Hiya!



Reply
#17

My God Zoo
The flipside of that is, while science hasn't proven spirit, it hasn't disproven it either.
[Image: signature%20The-Ascension-of-Iweko.jpg]
Reply
#18

My God Zoo
And science cannot prove that the Invisible Pink Unicorn does not exist either. So now the issue of Russelllian teapots is raised. Or in other theological debates, as inspired by Alvin Plantinga, The Great Pumpkin problem.
Plunk your magic twanger Froggy!   Boinnnnnng!  Hiya Kids!  Hiya! Hiya!



Reply
#19

My God Zoo
(04-10-2020, 09:18 PM)Cheerful Charlie Wrote: And science cannot prove that the Invisible Pink Unicorn does not exist either.  So now the issue of Russelllian teapots is raised. Or in other theological debates, as inspired by Alvin Plantinga, The Great Pumpkin problem.

You've moved from "hasn't" to "can't" and in doing so changed the question substantially. To your point, I've been singularly unimpressed with the fertility of pragmatism as a ground for epistemology. I'm not familiar with the Great Pumpkin Problem, having just learned of it, and so I'll remain silent on that score for the moment.
[Image: signature%20The-Ascension-of-Iweko.jpg]
Reply
#20

My God Zoo
(04-10-2020, 09:45 PM)Dānu Wrote:
(04-10-2020, 09:18 PM)Cheerful Charlie Wrote: And science cannot prove that the Invisible Pink Unicorn does not exist either.  So now the issue of Russelllian teapots is raised. Or in other theological debates, as inspired by Alvin Plantinga, The Great Pumpkin problem.

You've moved from "hasn't" to "can't" and in doing so changed the question substantially.  To your point, I've been singularly unimpressed with the fertility of pragmatism as a ground for epistemology.  I'm not familiar with the Great Pumpkin Problem, having just learned of it, and so I'll remain silent on that score for the moment.

The Great Pumpkin Objection of course refers to the cartoon Peanuts.  Linus believes in the Great Pumpkin and creates rather imaginative special pleading arguments for that.  of course, the Great Pumpkin never appears at the pumpkin patch on Halloween.
More special pleading follows to explain why that didn't happen.

The problem is for Plantinga and others like him to explain why we should consider their arguments and not other arguments, like Linus's Great Pumpkin.  Or say, Allah, or Santa Muerte.  This follows up on Plantinga's Warrant for Christian Belief project in three volumes.

Basically, a belief with no supporting evidence need not be taken seriously, any more than the Great Pumpkin.  Labelling a belief without evidence as "properly basic" isn't a solution to the Great Pumpkin problem.  Assertions that have no evidence for their truth cannot be used to deduce further propositions.


https://www.iep.utm.edu/ref-epis/#SH7a
....
Michael Martin offers a more troubling version of the argument. He does not label his objection as a Great Pumpkin objection, but Plantinga refers to it as the Son of the Great Pumpkin objection. Here is how Martin phrases the objection:
Although reformed epistemologists would not have to accept voodoo beliefs as rational, voodoo followers would be able to claim that insofar as they are basic in the voodoo community they are rational and, moreover, that reformed thought was irrational in this community. Indeed, Plantinga’s proposal would generate many different communities that could legitimately claim that their basic beliefs are rational. (Martin 1990: 272)
This second objection concerns whether or not a community can make judgments about the basic beliefs of other communities in a principled way. They may be able to argue that the believers in some other community are not justified in holding some of their non-basic beliefs, because they are not adequately supported by their basic beliefs, but since the basic beliefs are not supported by other beliefs, there seems to be no way for those outside the community to criticize them.
...

Plantinga has claimed belief in Christianity can be properly basic even if we have no hard evidence to demonstrate that is so.
Plunk your magic twanger Froggy!   Boinnnnnng!  Hiya Kids!  Hiya! Hiya!



The following 1 user Likes Cheerful Charlie's post:
  • Dānu
Reply
#21

My God Zoo
Great Pumpkin is the One True Gourd and don't you forget it!   Winking
No gods necessary
The following 1 user Likes brunumb's post:
  • trdsf
Reply
#22

My God Zoo
(04-10-2020, 03:16 PM)Cheerful Charlie Wrote: After a bit of thought, I decided to add souls to my list.  It is an important idea in the religious world to consider.

So, my list now rreads
17.  Lesser divine beings
18.  Souls, spirits
19.  Supernatural beings
20.  Fairies, leprechauns et al
21.  Ghost, poltergeists et al.

In Buddhism, they ignore the Creator but emphasize on the Buddha and other beings are gods too, they also acknowledge most if not all the Hindu gods.

Islam on the other hand says the Creator deserves that word while no one else does, because, that word is used for our highest reverence and exaltation.

The chosen ones who would be sons of God or gods if any were to be, are exalted, but incomparable to God.

Believers on the other hand are great, but exalted ones are much higher, and so the world exalted is for chosen ones, and believers are great but not exalted.

Semantics is the greater battle for truth.

Even when we know God is Exalted beyond all exalted, and greater then all creation, still, in our hearts, the number 1 person is ourselves and we wish to stump our feet on others, and trample them, while just working for our selfish identity.

Love is rational though, it sees value as it is,  that we aren't more important than others, and love sees God the Absolute being to be valued above all else, not because he requires it but because that's reality, and God made himself known as a favor to humans and all creation.
Reply
#23

My God Zoo
There are numerous Christian churches that use the name "Potter's House" as if we are just mud in god's hands. This God Zoo concept is perfect to demonstrate the opposite, that gods are mud in our  hands.
Trump is so convinced that everything is about him he has convinced his followers that everything is about him.
The following 1 user Likes Chimp3's post:
  • skyking
Reply
#24

My God Zoo
(04-09-2020, 09:42 AM)Cheerful Charlie Wrote: What people want is a perfect being God.  A God that is omni-everything, creates all, a maximal God.  Underlying all reality is God, there is nothing outside and beyond God.  This is more or less the God of billions.  Few people think about what that entails, and the problems these claims make.  In the end, Their God is incomprehensible, inscrutable.  The gap in which anything can be stuffed, so as to avoid thinking about any of this and admitting just how weak the idea of God is.

I do not know if this is universally what "everyone" wants, though it is clearly the most popular today.

Animists, for example, simply were looking for explanations for natural phenomena and so tended to personify lakes, trees, clouds, skies, rivers, etc. In those belief systems there is more a blurring of the natural and supernatural worlds than a single supernatural being creating and managing the world from outside. There wasn't an afterlife as such, there was just ancestors who had been freed from the constraints of the natural world. Different mindset, far less given to arguing doctrine or even having a coherent theology. It was just a given that various spirits express themselves in nature, perhaps have some degree of control over it, and everyone was relatively free to have their own perception of that.
Reply
#25

My God Zoo
(04-18-2020, 04:28 PM)mordant Wrote:
(04-09-2020, 09:42 AM)Cheerful Charlie Wrote: What people want is a perfect being God.  A God that is omni-everything, creates all, a maximal God.  Underlying all reality is God, there is nothing outside and beyond God.  This is more or less the God of billions.  Few people think about what that entails, and the problems these claims make.  In the end, Their God is incomprehensible, inscrutable.  The gap in which anything can be stuffed, so as to avoid thinking about any of this and admitting just how weak the idea of God is.

I do not know if this is universally what "everyone" wants, though it is clearly the most popular today.

Animists, for example, simply were looking for explanations for natural phenomena and so tended to personify lakes, trees, clouds, skies, rivers, etc. In those belief systems there is more a blurring of the natural and supernatural worlds than a single supernatural being creating and managing the world from outside. There wasn't an afterlife as such, there was just ancestors who had been freed from the constraints of the natural world. Different mindset, far less given to arguing doctrine or even having a coherent theology. It was just a given that various spirits express themselves in nature, perhaps have some degree of control over it, and everyone was relatively free to have their own perception of that.

Deism seems to have had a bit of a resurgence over the last decades or so.  God creates the world and lets it go on it's merry way.  God does not interfere in this world.  It is not a well organized theological system.
Plunk your magic twanger Froggy!   Boinnnnnng!  Hiya Kids!  Hiya! Hiya!



Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)