[Hereford Eye]

The concept of an anthropomorphic God is just so insane.
The book, Constants of Nature by John D. Barrow, goes to great lengths to show that the universe evolved in just the right way to allow for human existence. If any of the constants were significantly, some of them slightly, different; we wouldn't be here. That makes a fairly strong argument for an anthropomorphic god, don't you think?

[Holbrook]

The concept of an anthropomorphic God is just so insane.

Actually it is quite logical for a hunter/gatherer society to develop one. When your very existence relies on hunting to a large extent. Gods developed because the world away from the light of the camp fire was deadly. Man sought to tip the scales his way. In the hunt, with the planting and reaping of crops. Strands of the past religion abound in this country. The Celtic life and ways are just under the surface, often grafted onto Christian belief.

The Celtic believed in shape-shifting, not always the act of taking the animals shape, but taking on that animal's abilites to aid in the hunt.

If you get the chance get a copy of The Celtic Calender by Brian Day, a nicely balanced look at how the Celtic way has blended into the world we know now....

[Gary Wassner]

I fully understand the many reasons why this concept evolved in such a way. And of course, we cannot deny the simple inference that man made god in his own image. It's also hard to prove that we wouldn't be here under circumstances that did not occur. If the sun explodes we won't be here any longer, and I don't think that any of our concepts of god would really make a difference in that case.

[KatG]

Um, Gar, as sweet as everyone is being here, we're not suppose to have threads entirely devoted to religion with no context to your writing or sf/f writing in general, n'est pas? Now, if you can come up with some such slant, I'll let it stand. Oh, and if you are going to use the word "God," you have to specify -- Christian, Jewish, Muslim? Those are the monotheistic ones generally given the name "God," with a capital G, and then you have all the polys, the gods with the little g's, though obviously not little to their adherents.

[Gary Wassner]

I appreciate the concern, KatG. I know this is pushing the envelope here, but my interest is not in god or God, it is in what the concept of god stands for with regard to the ethical choices that we need to make in our lives. The quandary is have we constructed the concept as a foundation for our ethical systems, our belief systems, or are we flawed and fundamentally imperfect experiments created by some higher intelligence?

Again it's all about the choices we make and how we make them. If we view ourselves as god's mistake, we take one route. If we view god as man's mistake, we take another route entirely.

[KatG]

Okay, yes, but that is a topic entirely about religion and belief systems, even if it is involving religious ethics. Let's leave it this way -- if the discussion can continue pleasantly and if no one objects, I'll leave it, since we're giving the authors in their forums more leave to play around. If we run into problems, you know the drill. :)

[Gary Wassner]

Hey, I am the great mediator! I'm a lover not a fighter. Have no fear in my forum. If it should get offensive, I will be certain to take care of it. But without a little controverys and speculation, things can get so boring.

[Archren]

The book, Constants of Nature by John D. Barrow, goes to great lengths to show that the universe evolved in just the right way to allow for human existence. If any of the constants were significantly, some of them slightly, different; we wouldn't be here. That makes a fairly strong argument for an anthropomorphic god, don't you think?

Feynman had an interesting rebuttal for this argument (I'm paraphrasing here): Wow! I saw the license plate 3DAF200 today! Can you imagine? If just a few things had gone just a little bit differently, I never would've seen it! A greater intelligence must certainly be ordering my fate such that I was able to see that license plate! :D

You just have to make too many assumptions for that argument to fly.

[Gary Wassner]

Yes, I agree. Everything is fate, therefore, nothing.

[Joe Bloggs]

"What? Is man merely a mistake of God's? Or God merely a mistake of man's?"

Or neither?

What's your opinion here?

God is a creation of man to encourage man to behave himself, i.e. "the fear of God" etc.

The ultimate irony being that man has fought more wars and killed more people in the name of God than any other cause.

Plus, God is a great get out clause for insurance companies.

"Sorry! Can't pay you! Act of God."