Sunday, January 31, 2010

An Atheological Argument from Design

The question “Who made God” is commonly used to argue against the existence of the sort of god traditionally believed in by Christians, Jews, Muslims, and many other monotheists. Strictly speaking, this isn’t an independent argument because it is not offered on its own. Instead, it is used as a rebuttal to the claim that our universe is too complex and intricate not to have been designed.

Who Made God?

Related: Richard Dawkins and the "Who Made God?" Question


  1. "A creator-god is never portrayed as something simple or, more importantly, something simpler than the universe."

    I do not think that is a correct statement. It is a result of thinking that human need for words, and the way in which we attempt to explain innately simple things in words and end up complicating things, is one in the same with the reality of the Divine.

  2. The problem, BeeZee, is that the Biblical God (neither of them) lacks any resemblance to the philosophical arguments for design: prime mover, first cause, etc. These are all wonderful arguments based on Classical pagan philosophy, but they bear no likeness to the tangible God who walked with Adam in a garden which had talking snakes, and still exists somewhere this day defended by a flaming sword (presumably just floating around outside some sort of gate).

    The Biblical God is a myth, while the concept of the Divine is a highly refined concept developed through millenia of intelligent people rationalizing the notion of God outside the confines of the Bible.

  3. No, this is how Christianity has taken the G-d of the Torah and corrupted the idea, by making it into something that has to fit into some sort of literal word-for-word interpretation of their mistranslated text. As I told you in comments on your blog, Christians have translated things (tons and tons of things) incorrectly, making it into something literal, and they miss the entire point altogether. Each word in Hebrew is uniquely placed, based on roots and numerology that connect it to other words, ideas, and passages to teach deep theoretical ideas. G-d does not walk or talk or get angry or have any other "human" quality, and the text is not trying to be literal. I am sorry that you have been the victim of a society that screwed up a book that was never meant for them, nor had anything to do with them in the first place. The Torah, as it is meant to be, does not confine the concept of G-d to a box; that is what the Christian reading of it has done.

  4. I am aware of the fact that some monotheisms (Judaism and Islam, in particular) believe the original translation has some intrinsic power behind it. However, "the original" is itself an interpretation, regardless of one's feelings on where it originated.

    I believe the Torah is a hodge-podge of Semitic theology compiled by the redactor, while the other Hebrew texts which make up the New Testament have their own history, often being attributed to mythological Hebrew figures (as the Torah is ascribed to Moses by believers).

    Even if you believe these texts are written by who they are attributed to, El did not pen them. They are at best human interpretations... or translations.

    You don't have to be fluent in Hebrew and Koine Greek to know the Bible is full of shit. It is a nonsense that crosses all language barriers.

  5. I have no knowledge or interest in the "New Testament", as this is not my religion.

    If I had a child who constantly told me, "I'm hungry, I'm hungry, I'm hungry," and I looked at the child and said, "Hold your horses," and this were written in a book in English, then someone translated it into another language as, "When a child is very hungry in America, their parents tell them to go out into a pasture, gather horses together and grasp onto them tightly," and people started doing this...there is a great deal lost in translation, with the end result not being at all what the initial exchange meant. This is what Christian translations of the Torah have done.

    You may say that there are similar tales among other Semitic peoples, that's fine. You may say that they are human interpretations of the Divine (I didn't know that I said anything different from this myself), this is also fine. However, to say that the bullshit you read in English is actually the intention and language of the original text, is, from my vast religious education and upbringing in a system that sees things completely opposite as Christianity has translated them, grossly incorrect.

  6. So what you're saying is that maybe people are suppose to give women who have sex before marriage marijuana to get stoned...


If the post you are commenting on is more than 30 days old, your comment will have to await approval before being published. Rest assured, however, that as long as it is not spam, it will be published in due time.

Related Posts with Thumbnails