Technical Ben wrote:Is it that we cannot know "any part" of the mind of God, or just that we cannot know "all the parts" of the mind of God? As I am certain I can comprehend a mind in it's simplest form, so the phrase "you cannot know any part of the mind of God" is false.
So it's not an impossibility to consider such a thing. Even you admit we can deduce "He probably didn't go there to buy a camel" in the example you gave. We can see what Tony brought back from the shops in your example, right? We can look and see he got oranges. The scriptures suggest they saw what God did and thus could make a conclusion from those actions. Would you consider that open for interpretation or an example of how to get a definite result?
Woah, man. You just tore up those goalposts and ran out of the stadium with them. The question was about "A god" not specifically the Christian god! And my comment on Christians was about knowing the /mind/ of god. You can't know what god decided, you can only know what he's told you. No one was around to see him create anything, after all -even the bible is all after the fact.
For the Christian god, yeah, duh, the only rational conclusion, on the part of someone who holds the Bible to be accurate, looking back, is he didn't create anyone equal to or greater in power than him. Of course, say for a minute God DID create someone, and get overthrown. Even destroyed! How would we know?
We wouldn't. Everything else would be pretty much exactly the same, assuming the new God was fairly similar to the old. Unless he had some desire to gloat about overthrowing his daddy, like Zeus did, but that doesn't seem likely (for the Christian god). But that wasn't what you asked me, and wasn't the question I answered! If we're talking generic possible gods, we've got no evidence he brought back oranges, as you were. And if we're talking omnipotent beings, there's no real camel-level limitations we can impose - a man can't get camels form the grocery store, because they have no camels. A god can do whatever he wants, pretty much!
Is there evidence to see if we have an orange, meat or a pizza? What would we expect to see from a multitude of gods, a less powerful god, or an all powerful God? We know what such systems look like when people are involved. How do they decide who a ruler is? If there is a contested rule, an imposter, a shared rulership. Is there a difference with these that can be observed?
In some traditions, yeah. Greek tradition, multiple gods was a "duh" thing, because evidence of them is clear. Whole world looks to be full of conflicting influences! Clearly these are merely the clashing boundaries of different beings influence. This is why the Christians created the devil, after all. To explain away evil, they had to create a conflicting deity, even if a significantly weaker one. In some, of course, he's only a demigod, a servant of god, but in other traditions he is god's arch-nemesis. Either way, there's good evidence, should we accept divine influence, of conflicting
divine influence, and thus multiple gods.
Even if he did create other beings of equal power, how would we know? What if they just sort of chill with him, or generally do his work, or don't do his work but share his goals so there isn't issue?
We very very very much do not have enough information to decide that any of these options would make a more rational belief than the others. (The rational belief here would be to assume no gods exist at all, since that's the null hypothesis)
Personally, if there are gods, I'm going with the option of there being a lot of them from the get-go. Because its experientially and experimentally aberrant to be one of any class of thing. This isn't a whole lot of good at the level we're operating on, but its the best sort of evidence we've got. If you want to impose monotheism on that, you can say there's a fuckton of gods, but only one of them is interested in us
, and you'll have pretty much the same interactions record as what we've got.
Maybe the others just have some sort of fascination with blackholes, or each god got its own planet, etc. and so.
So, there is a multitude of gods proposed (a polytheism) and some of those gods are found to be imaginary or false. Would someone then reason it correct to remove them from their beliefs?
If this a reaction to the Egyptian god thing, I was under the impression it wasn't so much that the other gods were found false as that the hebrew god was shown to be significantly more powerful. After all, the Egyptian gods had been doing there things for a long time, but it was pretty normal Egyptian tradition for newer, more powerful gods to elbow the old ones out of the way.