Why yall niqqas accept that tha Greek gods were explanations for phenomena but you won't accept that "God" was/is the...

Why yall niqqas accept that tha Greek gods were explanations for phenomena but you won't accept that "God" was/is the same thing.

god of the gaps is alive and well meethinks

bump

>Why yall niqqas accept that tha Greek gods were explanations for phenomena

Not necessarily. They could have been demons.

What! who thinks that? out yourself fools!

they were bicameral men

>not self-conscious spirit aware of itself as itself.

never going to make it.

"god" is essentially the same no matter where you go

i wonder what that says about us xD;;

What if the biblical God was the demon, and the Olympian Gods were trying to warn us before they were defeated?

Really jogs the ole noggin

do not post scary things unless you want your arm twisted off

also the olympian gods are well and alive.

How was saying "God of the Gaps" ever an argument against theism? Meeethinks it is just an admittance that you have faith in science to evntually explain the ever present gap.

>Greek gods were explanations for phenomena
bucko...

I'm sure tradition and popular culture are keeping their memory alive, but I won't say any gods are "alive" in the literal sense right now. Zeus isn't pecking around and fathering demigods in Athenian bedrooms tonight.

wtf I believe in intelligent design now

God of the Gaps is a shitty idea anyway, since it precludes miracles. It's no better than deism.

Which is worse, believing that human knowledge can overcome areas where understanding is lacking, or using myths to fill those gaps temporarily until the truth is discovered?

Its okay to admit you don't know certain things.

I think you're on to something but far away at the same time. "science" as it is traditionally used defines itself as a physicalist institution, whereas theology pertains to human qualia. There will never be a full understanding of the human condition by way of physicalist explanations, as seen with the hard problem of consciousness.

contd. I think you could make the claim that god is to theology as physical/materialist knowledge is to science.

what a shitty gif. Rabbits are a sign of fertility and hence not scary.

well i'm persephone and hades is my bf
i'm also aphrodite and daphne and artemis too

Abrahamic God rarely ever explained *why* anything about the natural world is the way it is. I can think of no time God ever said "this is me supernaturally doing this thing" when it was later proven to have a wholly natural explanation. The closest I can think of is God saying that the rainbow is the symbol of Noah's covenant, but that doesn't explain shit about "how" a rainbow works.

>qualia
gtfo mental states are the new dualism

Ok. Do you have some argument against duelism?

>Its okay to admit you don't know certain things.

but that won't stop the dragon of chaos from eating your father in the underworld if you don't clean your room.

he gonna fugg ur butt

>Rabbits are a sign of fertility and hence super scary.
Fixed

no

i also don't have an argument for dualism

trying to tiptoe around the concept of the soul by means of talking about qualia is disingenuous though. i cannot help but interpret it as a way of reviving the intractable problem of dualism while avoiding talking about theological matters because ai is more fashionable.

Believing that human knowledge can overcome areas where understanding is lacking is worse.
Creating myths offers more creativity and good literature. Besides the current cult of science is actually more harmful, when the masses get engaged in any topic they degenerate it. It's already difficult to get funding and even when you do there is no guarantee of being published. If everyone on the planet thinks C02 is the main contributor to global warming (It's methane) then only research around that will be published, any contrary research even if published will not be popularised because journals need to make sales. It really harms scientific inquiry when only already accepted science is funded and/or popularised.
Leave science to the scientists, go believe in your overly judgemental spooky father figures it's for the best.

You just have faith that the entirety of the gap can be explained.

I'm not clicking that!

No?
Read the last line of that post again.

>god of the gaps
THERE CAN BE
ONLY
ONE
TRUE
GAP
HAG

>It really harms scientific inquiry when only already accepted science is funded and/or popularised.
You don't believe in the holy Consensus? Burn the witch!!

>creating thunder is the same as creating whole existence
Kill yourself my man

>qualia
>ai
what the fuck are you on about?

They're both that but neither is exclusively or even primarily that. The notion of religion as simply an explanation for why things are the way they are is just an invention of antitheists that they use to claim that religion is obsolete now. Ff religion is about getting answers for natural phenomena and science is better at that than religion, then religion would have no reason to exist.

*If religion

Religion has no reason to exist though?
No reason other than being a security blanket for people afraid of death, at least.

how do you explain the fact that there are religions with no afterlife?

>Religion has no reason to exist though?

Just take out the second sentence of my last post, then.

Not an argument.