The God Zoo

[Cheerful Charlie]

When dealing with the subject of the existence, or non-existence of God, we atheists often have trouble with theists who play games with definitions of God. So the definition of God can be problematic, especially with those theists who have read some 'sophisticated theology'. Thinking about the various definitions of God(s), i have been thinking of a project I call The God Zoo. Not in the sense of various gods, Yahweh, Zeus, Quetzcoatl, Odin, Shiva et al, but varying concepts of Gods. And the problems each type of God might have. This is a project under development. I toss this out here for comments, ideas, additions, and general merriment. Again, this is a work under development. The interesting thing to me is the Grand Gods of Grand Theologies seem to be the easiest to demonstrate being rather problematic. So here is an outline I have started to consider. 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. A major concept in the invention of Process theology by Alfred North Whitehead.
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
Angels, demons, and similar beings.
18. Supernatural beings
Lares, penitates, saints, souls, djinn etc.
19. Fairies, leprechauns et al
The vast number of more or less magical, or supernatural creatures who have been part of folklore world
wide for millenia.
20. Ghost, poltergeists et al.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Where do crop gods fit, in your categories? Those olden-timey gods that were in charge of some crop that was important to some tribe or group? Like the corn gods in Mesoamerica. BTW, beet god totally blows.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Where do crop gods fit, in your categories? Those olden-timey gods that were in charge of some crop that was important to some tribe or group? Like the corn gods in Mesoamerica. BTW, beet god totally blows.

That makes me think the list in the OP should be inverted. Most supernatural creatures are local and personal. One can't believe in the great Woo unless one believes in woo. Dear departed Granny is shaking things down in the pantry in the middle of the night and there's something under my bed too. Only then, of course, can we have theologians and doctors of divinity.

Folks are also quick to take these alleged super gods and personalize them, being thankful for helping them make the cheerleaders squad. So really all gods are personal gods, the Ghost of Granny and Jehovah and guardian angels aren't much different in their application.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Where do crop gods fit, in your categories? Those olden-timey gods that were in charge of some crop that was important to some tribe or group? Like the corn gods in Mesoamerica. BTW, beet god totally blows.

People invented God for the things that were important to them. Like agriculture. Vast swarms of such gods. The Roman Ceres cult had a parade of associated godlets, a god of hoeing weeds, a god for manuring the fields. Gods of shepards, gods of fruit trees orchards.

People created gods for what they knew. None of these gods of course came down and clued mankind in about such things like tube wells, genetics, creating artificial fertilizers, or windmills to pump water.

And all the many Godlets of humankind are of that manner. Rome for example had swarms of war Gods, Mars, his wife Belona, an ancient war Goddess, and swarms of related godlets. None of whom bothered to explain the benefits of gun powder to the Romans. None of the war gods of any culture did that either.

We don't see any God coming down to Earth to introduce their selves and their children, the goddesses of quarks, electrons, photons, or the gods of the 4 great forces, gravity, electro-magnetical, strong nuclear force, weak electrical forces, etc. No gods of chemistry explaining what the Universe is really made of, the 82 naturally occurring atoms.

I keep trying to start writing a nice essay on all of this but I keep pooping out. But all the nature gods of old have been busts as far as really helping mankind, no Promethean God coming down to explain germs and other important concepts to aid healers. This I think, is what we call, a clue. The concept of polytheistic gods of old doesn't pass the common sense check.

The ancients hadn't a clue about the real nature of the material world, and could not imagine how mindless sources could create a complex world, except for few daring philosophers. It had to have all been designed. By somebody. One of the first to break out of the mold, was Xenophanes.

“One god there is, in no way like mortal creatures either in bodily form or in the thought of his mind. The whole of him sees, the whole of him thinks, the whole of him hears. He stays always motionless in the same place; it is not fitting that he should move about now this way, now that.”
― Xenophanes

Perfect being, maximal God theology was born.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Where do crop gods fit, in your categories? Those olden-timey gods that were in charge of some crop that was important to some tribe or group? Like the corn gods in Mesoamerica. BTW, beet god totally blows.

People invented God for the things that were important to them. Like agriculture. Vast swarms of such gods. The Roman Ceres cult had a parade of associated godlets, a god of hoeing weeds, a god for manuring the fields. Gods of shepards, gods of fruit trees orchards.

Societies seem to have invented gods as a vehicle to express belief in luck and superstition generally. This ritualized behavior attributed to believing in gods is at its foundation just a further manifestation of our attraction to woo, our emotional self, nothing less than a mild case of OCD.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

It is a matter of hoping that prayers and sacrifices correctly done to the right godlet will assure that we won't be starving this season. Or that if invaded by the bastard from across the river, you god of war will help defeat them in battle. When one is helpless otherwise, hope in a helpful god is better than nothing. You are doing something. And as an added bonus, religious festivals often served as a welcome day off from the usual drudgery of ancient agricultural societies.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Flash forward through the eons, to last week. I'm on the phone to someone I met in an aerobics group.
Me: I don't care when I wake up anymore. All the stuff I used to go do in the morning has flatlined.
Her: I know, same here. It's a challenge. But I always have Jesus. Jesus is with me, no matter what.
Me: (Long mental 'Uhhhhh….') Okay. ...Do you keep up with the grandkids, on the phone?

 

[remez]

When dealing with the subject of the existence, or non-existence of God, we atheists often have trouble with theists who play games with definitions of God. So the definition of God can be problematic, especially with those theists who have read some 'sophisticated theology'. Thinking about the various definitions of God(s), i have been thinking of a project I call The God Zoo. Not in the sense of various gods, Yahweh, Zeus, Quetzcoatl, Odin, Shiva et al, but varying concepts of Gods. And the problems each type of God might have. This is a project under development. I toss this out here for comments, ideas, additions, and general merriment. Again, this is a work under development. The interesting thing to me is the Grand Gods of Grand Theologies seem to be the easiest to demonstrate being rather problematic. So here is an outline I have started to consider. 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. A major concept in the invention of Process theology by Alfred North Whitehead.
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
Angels, demons, and similar beings.
18. Supernatural beings
Lares, penitates, saints, souls, djinn etc.
19. Fairies, leprechauns et al
The vast number of more or less magical, or supernatural creatures who have been part of folklore world
wide for millenia.
20. Ghost, poltergeists et al.

You had me at hello....so......

When dealing with the subject of the existence, or non-existence of God, we atheists often have trouble with theists who play games with definitions of God.

Right back at you…….. What is the definition of atheism?

 

[hyzer]

When dealing with the subject of the existence, or non-existence of God, we atheists often have trouble with theists who play games with definitions of God. So the definition of God can be problematic, especially with those theists who have read some 'sophisticated theology'. Thinking about the various definitions of God(s), i have been thinking of a project I call The God Zoo. Not in the sense of various gods, Yahweh, Zeus, Quetzcoatl, Odin, Shiva et al, but varying concepts of Gods. And the problems each type of God might have. This is a project under development. I toss this out here for comments, ideas, additions, and general merriment. Again, this is a work under development. The interesting thing to me is the Grand Gods of Grand Theologies seem to be the easiest to demonstrate being rather problematic. So here is an outline I have started to consider. 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. A major concept in the invention of Process theology by Alfred North Whitehead.
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
Angels, demons, and similar beings.
18. Supernatural beings
Lares, penitates, saints, souls, djinn etc.
19. Fairies, leprechauns et al
The vast number of more or less magical, or supernatural creatures who have been part of folklore world
wide for millenia.
20. Ghost, poltergeists et al.

You had me at hello....so......

When dealing with the subject of the existence, or non-existence of God, we atheists often have trouble with theists who play games with definitions of God.

Right back at you…….. What is the definition of atheism?

It has been provided to you multiple times . . .

 

[ideologyhunter]

Atheism = seeing things in natural sunlight.

 

[remez]

You had me at hello....so......

Right back at you…….. What is the definition of atheism?

It has been provided to you multiple times . . .

Care to provide some evidence for that assertion?

Seems to be a complete dodge. What is so hard with providing and then defending your definition of atheism?

 

[remez]

Atheism = seeing things in natural sunlight.

Could mean anything you subjectively want it to mean.
Sounds like some uniformed Christians I know.
Just keep dodging the question.

 

[abaddon]

atheism | ˈāTHēˌizəm |
noun
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

~from New Oxford American Dictionary

 

[ideologyhunter]

i.e., the way everyone today regards Odin.

 

[abaddon]

Atheism doesn't require the verbal stew that theism does. We all look at the world and none of us see the handiwork of God anywhere in it unless that idea's been added during our "education" into various abstractions... stories... that are about reality but not an evident feature of it.

Atheists see the imaginary and verbal contrivance... whichever god you care to name... as an unconvincing story for lack of evidence.

And, as with Russell's teapot, it's not on the disbeliever to justify his disbelief or lack of belief regardless of any reasons a teapot-believer gives for why it's hard to see. Show it, without verbal diarrhea, or the reasons to believe are lame reasons.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

An atheist is one who does not believe in God or gods. It does not matter if that atheist has good reasons for not believing, bad reasons for not believing, or offers no reasons at all for not believing.

It is that simple.

 

[remez]

atheism | ˈāTHēˌizəm |
noun
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

~from New Oxford American Dictionary

That "or" creates quite a difference of philosophical conclusion.
So...sort out the verbal straw for me…..
Are you an atheist that asserts there is no god/gods
or......
Do you simply lack a belief?

Atheism doesn't require the verbal stew that theism does. We all look at the world and none of us see the handiwork of God anywhere in it unless that idea's been added during our "education" into various abstractions... stories... that are about reality but not an evident feature of it.

Clarification of pronouns needed. Your use of “we” and “us” is confusing.
B/c……
“We” all look……… “We” is atheist or everyone? B/c I as a theist see scientific evidence that supports a creator. So you seem to be speaking for atheists only.
Thus….
None of “us” see…..means that atheists only don’t see the evidence b/c obviously I see plenty of scientific evidence that supports a transcendent creator.
Thus further…..it simply means that we interpret the evidence differently. So differently that you judge that theists don’t have evidence. Yet we (you and I) are looking at the same evidence. You are philosophically reasoning that evidence doesn’t exist. And that philosophy would need to be explained and supported. Therein lies the true difference.

Atheists see the imaginary and verbal contrivance... whichever god you care to name... as an unconvincing story for lack of evidence.

Clearly. But what is your reasoning to justify that all these different gods in the zoo are on the same footing. These “stories” are not all the same. Just consider the issue of origins. For example…. I agree that Apollo reasons to be a contrivance b/c he is historically/mythologically part of this universe, thus can reasonably be discarded as a contender as the transcend creator of a universe that plausibly began to exist. That goes for all gods in the zoo that are by their mythologies part of this universe. All of those gods in the zoo are not scientifically supported by a universe that most plausibly began to exist. How many gods are there that are described as transcendent creators?

Atheists see the imaginary and verbal contrivance... whichever god you care to name... as an unconvincing story for lack of evidence.

You are irrationally treating them as all the same. The issue of origin certainly eliminates the vast majority of the zoo as contrivance. But it in no way eliminates theism.
And again…. How does the “evidence” of a universe that plausibly began to exist mean that theism has no evidence? You simply assert there is no evidence. You need to defend your assertion. Specifically tell me how a past finite universe does not support a transcendent creator.

And, as with Russell's teapot, it's not on the disbeliever to justify his disbelief or lack of belief regardless of any reasons a teapot-believer gives for why it's hard to see. Show it, without verbal diarrhea, or the reasons to believe are lame reasons.

I understand Russel’s attempt. But his attempt is not analogous to the theistic creator. Russel’s teapot is a material contrivance to reason against the theist immaterial creator. Teapots and FSMs are material thus cannot be used as analogous to the theist creator. Further, the contrivance of his teapot is also a part of the universe and thus again a faulty analogy to the theistic transcendent creator that is supported by a past finite universe. And since his teapot is part of this universe then his teapot is past finite as well. Same goes for the FSM and farting space goats.
And…
Again how does the presence of a past finite universe not support for a transcendent creator? You know my reasoning there…so how am I not addressing my burden to justify my belief with evidence and reasoning? YOU DO have the burden to show me why your undefended arbitrary denial of my provided evidence and reasoning is incorrect. Until you do so it is your denial that is verbal diarrhea.

 

[remez]

An atheist is one who does not believe in God or gods. It does not matter if that atheist has good reasons for not believing, bad reasons for not believing, or offers no reasons at all for not believing.

It is that simple.

Ok, lets keep this simple then......

If you are not required to have good reasons or any reasons at all for what you believe
Then
Why do you insist that theists need to have good reasons for what they believe?

 

[abaddon]

Atheism isn't a metaphysical stance but a psychological state.

Do you simply lack a belief?

Yes. My active beliefs are other than atheism.

Clarification of pronouns needed. Your use of “we” and “us” is confusing.

We humans all look at the world and none of us humans see the handiwork of God... I'm talking about before the interpreting starts, to make a point of how simple atheism is. Atheism doesn't require all the interpreting of the evidence that theism does.

I as a theist see scientific evidence that supports a creator.

You think you see it because your education included thinking in the terms of an ancient mythological tradition. Ancient theists thought it took intention for anything to happen and so they projected a god. Modern theists continue indulging this same anthropomorphizing impulse.

... I see plenty of scientific evidence that supports a transcendent creator.

And children see scientific evidence that Santa Claus puts presents under a tree. The presents exist, their existence must be explained, the more self-serving that the explanation is the better, the list of possible present-makers can be trimmed down to who seems most likely. After all, mom and dad have their limits; even kids know only a supernatural being can ride a sleigh in the sky and fit down the chimney.

The children were taught to interpret the evidence that way. And so long as they value the meaningfulness their Santa provides, they'll keep doing it.

Thus further…..it simply means that we interpret the evidence differently.

I'm very aware that values have a lot to do with our, and everyone's, differences in outlook.

We've been over why your interpreting is unconvincing before.

But my point here is, that atheism is not a metaphysical proposition. It is not a statement of belief, it's a description of a person. It's the state of mind where the choice to struggle to sustain the belief in deity hasn't been made.

But it in no way eliminates theism.

I'm not an atheist because I've eliminated all reasons that all theists have ever presented for theism. I'm an atheist for not having been convinced by what's been presented to me.

And again…. How does the “evidence” of a universe that plausibly began to exist mean that theism has no evidence? You simply assert there is no evidence.

There's lack of convincing evidence, to be more clear than I was with the "lack of evidence" statement.

The point about what humans don't see in nature was that the evidence for God doesn't look like evidence for God until after a person has somehow found a mythology reasonable.

You need to defend your assertion. Specifically tell me how a past finite universe does not support a transcendent creator.

It's an interesting conjecture but I'm waiting for better than some strained armchair philosophy before I'll consider anyone to have a plausible explanation for this universe. I don't commit to beliefs very readily.

I understand Russel’s attempt. But his attempt is not analogous to the theistic creator. Russel’s teapot is a material contrivance to reason against the theist immaterial creator. Teapots and FSMs are material thus cannot be used as analogous to the theist creator.

No, it's to reason against anyone going on and on about how he's powerfully demonstrated anything and therefore the burden has shifted to others.

Is your God immanent too, or just transcendent? If he's immanent then let's see something more direct. Show God's within the universe before asserting he's there in the beyond. Maybe he'd be more believable then.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

An atheist is one who does not believe in God or gods. It does not matter if that atheist has good reasons for not believing, bad reasons for not believing, or offers no reasons at all for not believing.

It is that simple.

Ok, lets keep this simple then......

If you are not required to have good reasons or any reasons at all for what you believe
Then
Why do you insist that theists need to have good reasons for what they believe?

Not all atheists even care. I myself am a strong atheist. Basic claims about God made by theists have little support for them. And create some rather ugly little problems for theology's claims about God. I care about that because theology is basically wrong about everything. And theology leads to stupid religions doing stupid things. And that is important.