• halowpeano@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    4 个月前

    They had to reject it because any religion with a creation myth specifically says how the god created people. To accept an alternative story would reject the notion of the book as truth.

    The religious are not looking for answers, they already have all the answers by definition of their holy book or whatever. They’re looking for confirmation bias and reject anything that goes against that.

    • howrar@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      4 个月前

      If you’re talking specifically about the Abrahamic God, sure. But if it’s about the existence of any higher being, then there’s no contradiction here.

        • howrar@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          4 个月前

          Anything that you would call a “god”.

          If I give an ostensive definition, I would say it includes the beings like the Abrahamic god, or Olympian gods, and exclude humans, animals, bacteria, the planet we live on, and objects we handle in our day to day lives. I’ll tentatively draw the line at any being that is not bound to the laws of physics as we understand them today.

          • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            4 个月前

            Why exclude humans, animals and bacteria? How about Sun? Jesus Christ? God-King Jayavarman II? A cat? Very small spirit of tiny stream? A holy stone (stone is not a human, nor animal or bacteria, a lot of stones were worshipped in various forms and meanings in history)? A tree chewed by pilgrims? Invisible Hand of the Market?

            Incredibly arbitrary definition again constructed to wriggle your way from any concrete statement.

            • theilleist@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 个月前

              If we had the technological power, would humans run simulations of universes with Planck length precision? Obviously yes. So extrapolating from our one and only example of intelligent life (us), it seems like intelligent life enjoys stimulating universes. If our reality were the result of that kind of project, and the engineers lived outside the laws of physics, I would call them higher beings. And they could be as hands-off or as interventionist as they pleased.

              • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 个月前

                Sure that’s a valid defintion, albeit a super specific one and it directly exclude all (or almost all) known forms of religion on Earth.

                • theilleist@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  4 个月前

                  Run command: “Fiat Lux”

                  Warning: it will take 7 days to complete operation. Continue?

                  “This had better be good.”

                  “Fuck it, I’m tired of waiting, I’ll come back on the 8th day.”

                  “Oh, this IS good.”

                  “What are these stupid apes doing? Fine, I’ll educate them myself.”

                  Instantiate avatar: “Jesus_Nazareth”

                  Which part is directly excluded?

                  • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    4 个月前

                    The one where there is not only zero proof of anything of it being real, but also zero (or nearly zero) religious people actually beliving that.

            • howrar@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              4 个月前

              I don’t think OP is asking about the existence of humans, or animals, or any other physical entity. If they were, you can trivially say that you exist, and therefore god exists. That’s unless you want to go into ontology and question what it means to “exist”, which I’m pretty sure also isn’t what OP intended.

              • PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                4 个月前

                I didn’t asked about OP, i asked YOU to define it and you are weaseling out of it continously, you cannot even answer why did you exclude humans, animals and bacteria from your definition, while humans and animals have been historically worshipped in many cases.

                • howrar@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  4 个月前

                  I’m trying to help OP reach an answer to their question, therefore the definitions I’m working with are the same as that of OP. What I personally believe should be categorized as a “higher being” is irrelevant because if it’s different from OP’s definition, it won’t help them reach their desired answer.

    • StaySquared@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      4 个月前

      Nope. In Islam, God commands His servants to seek knowledge in all things. Muslims are obligated to seek knowledge because it will only continue to prove the existence of God.