Vik.Marquet Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 Hey guys, I've always been fascinated by the image of God. More specific with the question why he always seems to be visualised as a human, although he/she/it is described as so much more than that. Than humans. Could it be that our body forms our reference from where we shape God? And could that also mean that (hypothetically speaking) if we are able to leave our body, we could create a new reference for the visualisations of God? (If attached an image which shows what I mean)What do you guys think about this? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrKrettin Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 Hey guys, I've always been fascinated by the image of God. More specific with the question why he always seems to be visualised as a human, although he/she/it is described as so much more than that. Because that's what it says in the bible, written by people in a highly male-dominated society. I'm not sure what point there is in trying to discuss this on a science forum, because here one usually operates on evidence-based phenomena. For childish and unsupported claims, you need a religion forum. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prometheus Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 Because that's what it says in the bible, written by people in a highly male-dominated society. I'm not sure what point there is in trying to discuss this on a science forum, because here one usually operates on evidence-based phenomena. For childish and unsupported claims, you need a religion forum. Surely it's an interesting question in anthropology. There are plenty of other religions, what about their image of god? Does the Islamic aniconism lead to different visualisations of god? Do they have any common visualisations of Allah? The Hindu pantheon has many different images of humanoids, some male, some female, some both/neither. But not so the Brahman, sometimes depicted as a drop of water in a pool. The Confucian pantheon is full of human shaped gods - but then many of them were historical figures, such as Guan Yu. See, interesting - if you like that kind of thing. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBeardedDude Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 Hey guys, I've always been fascinated by the image of God. More specific with the question why he always seems to be visualised as a human, although he/she/it is described as so much more than that. Than humans. Could it be that our body forms our reference from where we shape God? And could that also mean that (hypothetically speaking) if we are able to leave our body, we could create a new reference for the visualisations of God? (If attached an image which shows what I mean) What do you guys think about this? I think it is a good piece of evidence to show that gods are human inventions. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sriman Dutta Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 Yes, man thinks that his God looks like him. Although in Hindu mythology we have a god in the form of creatures like cow and ape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrP Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 QUOTE: "..Hindu mythology we have god in form of .... cow and ape." Yes - in the Christian mythology it states that we are in God's image, so they picture god as a man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 And could that also mean that (hypothetically speaking) if we are able to leave our body, we could create a new reference for the visualisations of God? The key is that we don't need to leave our bodies to do this. We can create a new reference for the visualization of God anytime we want. He can become a pillar of fiery lamb & dove-filled bushes if you want. Just use your imagination. That's probably how religion started in the first place, wondering about our bodies and if anything was left when they stopped moving. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrKrettin Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 (edited) That's probably how religion started in the first place, wondering about our bodies and if anything was left when they stopped moving. I doubt that - I suspect that they were an explanation for what causes natural phenomena - Greek religion is a prime example. Having said that, there is probably no one single root. Edit: with "they" I mean the Gods. Edited December 13, 2016 by DrKrettin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sriman Dutta Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 The origin of God dates back from the Stone Age of early humans. It began because early men feared the forces of nature and started to worship them in order to appease them. And he then personified the forces of nature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Itoero Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 Scientific curiosity can be considered to be a reason for the origin of religion. People want to know the cause for certain phenomena in nature.If science is not capable of giving answers then people look for supernatural causes. Science evolved far enough to make the need for religious beliefs unnecessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 (edited) Just use your imagination. That's probably how religion started in the first place, wondering about our bodies and if anything was left when they stopped moving. I think religions start when the consensus, of people, agree's a truth from their current understanding and through the process of Chinese whispers, that agreed truth becomes belief, of god (or science); how certain are you that atheism/secularism/humanism won't fall foul of this process? Edited December 13, 2016 by dimreepr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 I think religions start when the consensus, of people, agree's a truth from their current understanding and through the process of Chinese whispers, that agreed truth becomes belief, of god (or science); how certain are you that atheism/secularism/humanism won't fall foul of this process? Mainly because we're concerned about it, unlike the religious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Itoero Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 Also, our idea of truth can evolve, the 'truth' in religion can't evolve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 Mainly because we're concerned about it, unlike the religious. Now maybe, what about a century/millennium from now? Could we really differentiate the two, if our understanding stops now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 Now maybe, what about a century/millennium from now? Could we really differentiate the two, if our understanding stops now? Sure, if we continue to demand more trust than faith from our belief in science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dimreepr Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 (edited) Sure, if we continue to demand more trust than faith from our belief in science. Our, continued understanding of science depends on that demand, but faith? whether in science or religion, faith/belief is always corruptible Edited December 13, 2016 by dimreepr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted December 13, 2016 Share Posted December 13, 2016 Our, continued understanding of science depends on that demand, but faith? whether in science or religion, faith/belief is always corruptible Faith-belief is absolutely corruptible. Hope-belief is often corruptible. Trust-belief is far less corruptible, based simply on the sheer numbers of distrusting skeptics. Our continued understanding of science requires we constantly satisfy true skeptics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prometheus Posted January 2, 2017 Share Posted January 2, 2017 Faith-belief is absolutely corruptible. Hope-belief is often corruptible. Trust-belief is far less corruptible, based simply on the sheer numbers of distrusting skeptics. Our continued understanding of science requires we constantly satisfy true skeptics. The corruption of science has thoroughly begun. We have creationism, anti-climate science, anti-vaccines, etc. With Trump and Pence maybe we'll start to see creationism taught alongside science. The public are starting to distrust experts in general (one of the pro-Brexit arguments), including scientists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now