Are there two Gods opposing each other?

[Unknown Soldier]

Many Christian apologists argue that there must be a creator God who designed and made living things. As evidence, they might point to the structure of a cheetah. Cheetahs, in addition to sharp teeth and powerful jaws, come equipped with long legs, big lungs, and rudder-like tails that enable then to run at high rates of speed while quickly maneuvering to run down and overcome antelopes. Cheetahs must then be intelligently designed by a God who made them to survive as successful predators. Like all predators, cheetahs look to be designed to be killers.

The problem with this argument is that antelopes appear designed to escape hungry cheetahs. Antelopes can also run very fast and are very wary making them difficult prey even for cheetahs. Prey animals in general appear designed to escape or fight off would-be predators.

So what God would create and design one part of His world to resist and conflict with another part of His world? If we wish to stay with the intelligent-design argument, monotheism (belief in one God) doesn't fit these facts well. I propose dualism (belief in two opposing Gods) as a better explanation for predator-prey relations. There is one God who creates predators and a second God who creates prey species.

Questions or comments are welcome.

 

[Tharmas]

The Tyger
William Blake, 1794

Tyger Tyger, burning bright,
In the forests of the night;
What immortal hand or eye,
Could frame thy fearful symmetry?

In what distant deeps or skies,
Burnt the fire of thine eyes?
On what wings dare he aspire?
What the hand, dare sieze the fire?

And what shoulder, & what art,
Could twist the sinews of thy heart?
And when thy heart began to beat,
What dread hand? & what dread feet?

What the hammer? what the chain,
In what furnace was thy brain?
What the anvil? what dread grasp,
Dare its deadly terrors clasp!

When the stars threw down their spears
And water'd heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the Lamb make thee?

Tyger Tyger burning bright,
In the forests of the night:
What immortal hand or eye,
Dare frame thy fearful symmetry?

 

[bilby]

Many Christian apologists argue that there must be a creator God who designed and made living things. As evidence, they might point to the structure of a cheetah. Cheetahs, in addition to sharp teeth and powerful jaws, come equipped with long legs, big lungs, and rudder-like tails that enable then to run at high rates of speed while quickly maneuvering to run down and overcome antelopes. Cheetahs must then be intelligently designed by a God who made them to survive as successful predators. Like all predators, cheetahs look to be designed to be killers.

The problem with this argument is that

...it's founded in utter nonsense, and there's not a shred of even half-credible evidence for it.

We know why there's variation between living things; Why Cheetahs are dissimilar to Antelopes, and why both have features that allow them to overcome the features of the other in their predator/prey relationship.

It's the consequence of an evolutionary "arms race".

Some Christian apologists point to the fact that Australians don't fall off into space and argue that the Earth must be flat.

But we know that the Earth is approximately spherical, and that its mass attracts other mass towards it, as does all matter.

The theory of evolution, like the theory of universal gravitation, isn't just an idea; It's a detailed and very well tested idea, that is known to accurately describe the reality in which we live.

Ideas that disregard either theory are the ramblings of idiots - not because these theories are unquestionable dogma, but because they have been questioned by the absolute best (and the mediocre, and the worst) that human ingenuity and intelligence can throw at them, and have passed every challenge with flying colours.

Wherever a challenge has been difficult to meet (for example in the observation that Mercury doesn't orbit quite the way Newton's formulas for universal gravitation said it should), the theory has been updated and modified to incorporate the unexpected observations, and the new formulation has been found to imply the old - Einsteinian Relativity didn't mean that rocks suddenly started falling upwards.

By all means question either theory. But be aware that questioning Evolutionary theory to the point of suggesting an intelligent designer as a alternative, is no less batshit crazy than questioning Gravitational theory to the point of suggesting that the Earth is flat.

It's not. We checked.

 

[pood]

Many Christian apologists argue that there must be a creator God who designed and made living things. As evidence, they might point to the structure of a cheetah. Cheetahs, in addition to sharp teeth and powerful jaws, come equipped with long legs, big lungs, and rudder-like tails that enable then to run at high rates of speed while quickly maneuvering to run down and overcome antelopes. Cheetahs must then be intelligently designed by a God who made them to survive as successful predators. Like all predators, cheetahs look to be designed to be killers.

The problem with this argument is that

...it's founded in utter nonsense, and there's not a shred of even half-credible evidence for it.

We know why there's variation between living things; Why Cheetahs are dissimilar to Antelopes, and why both have features that allow them to overcome the features of the other in their predator/prey relationship.

It's the consequence of an evolutionary "arms race".

Some Christian apologists point to the fact that Australians don't fall off into space and argue that the Earth must be flat.

But we know that the Earth is approximately spherical, and that its mass attracts other mass towards it, as does all matter.

The theory of evolution, like the theory of universal gravitation, isn't just an idea; It's a detailed and very well tested idea, that is known to accurately describe the reality in which we live.

Ideas that disregard either theory are the ramblings of idiots - not because these theories are unquestionable dogma, but because they have been questioned by the absolute best (and the mediocre, and the worst) that human ingenuity and intelligence can throw at them, and have passed every challenge with flying colours.

Wherever a challenge has been difficult to meet (for example in the observation that Mercury doesn't orbit quite the way Newton's formulas for universal gravitation said it should), the theory has been updated and modified to incorporate the unexpected observations, and the new formulation has been found to imply the old - Einsteinian Relativity didn't mean that rocks suddenly started falling upwards.

By all means question either theory. But be aware that questioning Evolutionary theory to the point of suggesting an intelligent designer as a alternative, is no less batshit crazy than questioning Gravitational theory to the point of suggesting that the Earth is flat.

It's not. We checked.

I don‘t think he’s advocating for this nonsense but rather running a rather effective reductio on montheism. At least, I hope so. With him, who can tell?

 

[pood]

Cheetah chirps!

 

[bilby]

I don‘t think he’s advocating for this nonsense but rather running a rather effective reductio on montheism.

Well, if we're rejecting monotheism, why not polytheism, rather than dualism?

Dichotomy is almost as uncommon as monopoly. If you're stuck with the gross error that is theism, then polytheists would appear to have the fewest difficult questions to answer about why none of the Gods are able to impose their divine will on anything with any degree of consistency or permanency.

 

[Swammerdami]

Why just dualism (unless you're hung up on Good vs Evil)? Tiger sharks feed on lobsters, which in turn feed on various living creatures, some themselves predators. You're going to need a lot of Gods if each rung on the feeding ladder gets its own! (Are tiger sharks "evil", by the way?)

Leibniz's theodicy is the result of one very smart (but "god-fearing") man's efforts to understand this dilemma.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Many gods may indeed be a better description as it is clear there are many animals that seemed to have been designed by committee.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Why just dualism (unless you're hung up on Good vs Evil)?

I was considering the predator versus prey relation seen in nature where there is one God for predators and another God for prey. Since most intelligent-design creationists make a case for a designer God, I decided to argue that if we want to posit an intelligent Designer that created living things, then positing two such agents makes better sense. In other words, the argument from design is actually an argument against monotheism rather than an argument that supports monotheism.

Tiger sharks feed on lobsters, which in turn feed on various living creatures, some themselves predators. You're going to need a lot of Gods if each rung on the feeding ladder gets its own! (Are tiger sharks "evil", by the way?)

Dualism is simplistic, but it's less simplistic than the argument for a single Designer.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Many gods may indeed be a better description as it is clear there are many animals that seemed to have been designed by committee.

Polytheism does seem more intuitive than monotheism. Perhaps monotheism won out in the West because it was found to be more useful politically.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Many gods may indeed be a better description as it is clear there are many animals that seemed to have been designed by committee.

Where they forgot about waste disposal during design as the initial models were blowing up... and they needed a quick a fix.

 

[James Brown]

Many gods may indeed be a better description as it is clear there are many animals that seemed to have been designed by committee.

Polytheism does seem more intuitive than monotheism. Perhaps monotheism won out in the West because it was found to be more useful politically.

I feel the opposite is true. Monotheism is "My god is better than your god" taken to its logical extreme.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Many gods may indeed be a better description as it is clear there are many animals that seemed to have been designed by committee.

Polytheism does seem more intuitive than monotheism. Perhaps monotheism won out in the West because it was found to be more useful politically.

I feel the opposite is true. Monotheism is "My god is better than your god" taken to its logical extreme.

How would belief in a single God be politically problematical? If a religious group wants to rise to power, then monotheism seems to be the way to go enjoying support from the one and only God. "If God is for us, then who can be against us?" Under polytheism competing groups can rise up behind other Gods they believe can overcome the God of the ruling class.

 

[TomC]

How would belief in a single God be politically problematical? If a religious group wants to rise to power, then monotheism seems to be the way to go enjoying support from the one and only God. "If God is for us, then who can be against us?" Under polytheism competing groups can rise up behind other Gods they believe can overcome the God of the ruling class.

It's hard to grasp sometimes, here in the Abrahamic world, but not all religionists weaponize God.
Tom

 

[Unknown Soldier]

How would belief in a single God be politically problematical? If a religious group wants to rise to power, then monotheism seems to be the way to go enjoying support from the one and only God. "If God is for us, then who can be against us?" Under polytheism competing groups can rise up behind other Gods they believe can overcome the God of the ruling class.

It's hard to grasp sometimes, here in the Abrahamic world, but not all religionists weaponize God.
Tom

As long as some people have created Gods of war, then my point about the advantages of monotheism in politics remains true.

 

[TomC]

As long as some people have created Gods of war, then my point about the advantages of monotheism in politics remains true.

I agree. Completely.
Yahweh is a God of war. Jesus is a God of war. Allah is a God of war.

They all are. They're all modeled on ancient warrior kings.

And most of their various iterations. There is no particular Yahweh, Jesus, or Allah. There are only the zillions of God images people create in their own images.

Here's how I'd put it.
"If God is created in my image, and I'm a male individual, God is a male individual."

Most of God's creators have been male individuals, especially in Abrahamic cultures, so therefore an individual male God is the Abrahamic god image.
It's not hard to understand once you realize that God is a flexible, fictional, character type created by humans for their own purposes.
Tom

 

[James Brown]

Few nations have been so poor as to have but one god. Gods were made so easily, and the raw material cost so little, that generally the god market was fairly glutted, and heaven crammed with these phantoms.

--The Gods, by Robert G. Ingersoll

 

[TomC]

Few nations have been so poor as to have but one god. Gods were made so easily, and the raw material cost so little, that generally the god market was fairly glutted, and heaven crammed with these phantoms.

--The Gods, by Robert G. Ingersoll

But when a people or nation are strong enough to reduce God to One, created in their own image, they can become very rich indeed.
Tom

 

[ideologyhunter]

With polytheism, at least there are gods whose domains don't allow for much, well, douchedom. For instance, Bacchus, whose domain is described as wine, which everyone knows, but also revelry (not a stretch), horticulture, ambiguity, and theater. I'd love to know how the ambiguity is covered -- I'll have to read up on that.

 

[bilby]

With polytheism, at least there are gods whose domains don't allow for much, well, douchedom. For instance, Bacchus, whose domain is described as wine, which everyone knows, but also revelry (not a stretch), horticulture, ambiguity, and theater. I'd love to know how the ambiguity is covered -- I'll have to read up on that.

Drink enough wine, and ambiguity will manifest itself very strongly