Most religious folk can finally accept that Earth isn't the center of the solar system, and as we know, it's not the center of anything, other than the moon's orbit. Yet they can't look the next step and understand that Earthlings, e.g. human being and its associated activities and concerns of morality, are not the center of the universe either. To have such Earth-centric religions clearly indicates that religions were born on Earth, i.e. man made god.

And of course by god I mean a theistic one.

You must be new to the forums.

I'm not entirely clear on the connection between being earth-centric and man-made-God. For all we know, earth could be the only place with life on it.

As an indication, there are definitely better ones.

and let's thank that man made God that it isn't the other way around!

Ok, let's assume Earth is the only planet with life on it. The age of the universe as we know it is 13.82B years old. Man came into being 200k years ago. 200k is a 200 / 13.82 / 10^6 = 0.001%, so man has been in existence for 0.001% of the age of the universe, yet all modern day religions are human-centric, as they either emphasize either how god resembles man or how important it human morality is. So you tell me, is it more plausible to believe that an eternal human-centric god created human in his image just the last 0.001% of the universe's age, or that man, a very recent newcomer to the universe, created god in his image?

Plus, along the same lines as the op, as history as shown, man has held a plethora of religions across all geographies and cultures. So did god create religion, or did culture and geographic isolation create religion?

Let's assume that Earth is the only planet with life on it. Then we make some assertions about things that have no connection to the idea that earth is the only planet with life on it. Then we ask a question in the form of a false dichotomy, pretending as if that's a meaningful way to address the situation.

Plus, we make some other assertion that has absolutely no bearing on the underlying question.

And from this, we conclude that man created God.

If you read my post, rather than searching your college textbook of logical fallacies, I wasn't disproving that God created man... I was offering insight to its lack of plausibility.

I'm not defining God per se, I'm attacking all "human-centric" Gods. Most modern day religions fall under this category.

If man or the importance of his morality is at the center of a religion, I consider that religion "human-centric". In Christianity, man was created in God's image. In Islam, an awful lot is said about man's morality. In Hinduism, multiple Gods resemble man and other earthbound animals.

If you had the capacity to make a coherent argument, you would be generally more successful at making meaningful posts. But if all you're going for are random and unrelated assertions, don't let me stop you.

He's trying to make something sound plausible. Normally, one proceeds by making a plausibility argument. But since he's not making an argument, you should not expect any logical connection between the sentences that he's using (which is fundamentally what an argument is).

In other words, don't read it like it's coherent. Read it like it's stream of consciousness babbling.

Yeah, the list of things that fall into the category of "rigorous logical proof" that are worth debating about are precisely zero. The real world is competing mental models of various plausibility and copious unstated assumptions.

Even that isn't true. The Earth and moon orbit each other (more technically, they orbit around a point that represents their shared center of gravity, which is just inside the earth but near the surface)

I think your model for looking at the plausibility of various ideas is a good one. Anything that posits the specialness or uniqueness or is limited to the scope of a particular something later found to not be special or unique at all is obviously coming from a non divine place. Other examples:

- Man is 0.00001% of all species, yet has near complete importance in the bible (species-centric)
- Women are equally valid, yet have limited importance or rights in religious texts (man-centric, who happened to be powerful when the texts were written)
- Judaism for example claims that Jews are special and relates merely the history of the Jews rather than the world (race-centric, for the race that wrote it)
- The laws of Moses or Sharia fit with the prejudices and customs of the age rather than far more enlightened models which are possible (current-prejudice-centric)
- God(s) take the form of things the people who wrote the book saw and considered important. For example, Hindus had elephant Gods, Greeks with their nation state had important person Gods, the Middle East with their paternal tribal desert culture had a paternal God. (awareness-centric)
- The religion has elements that will fuel its spread (guilt, killing of non believers, promises of great things) (spreadable-meme-centric)
- The religion has promises that fit very neatly with base human desires/wishful thinking (desire-centric)

Using these criteria, Buddhism is perhaps the most plausibly divine religion.

NO. I'm saying religions are very human-centric, as if humans have a special place in the uinverse. We don't.

Most folk, particularly the religious kind, have difficulty understanding what I'm saying, so I won't blame you for this. However, please don't pollute my thread with repeated posts on how logically incoherent I am without specifcally addressing a single one of my statements.

Aaron, you really shouldn't wade into this stuff if you don't understand logic (and what a logical error is).
He didn't assume it. He conceded it as a hypothetical - to address an objection.
Uh, no. He says that even with your hypothetical, I can make an argument for the strangeness and narrowness of what religion covers. He's arguing a form of Occam's Razor and a form of probabilistic thinking (does set A fit better in set B or set C?)

He didn't explicitly state these because they're obvious to any (apparently, most?) readers.
He doesn't present a false dichotomy. He presented two competing models as applied to the facts above. Presenting competing models is not a false dichotomy. A scientist doesn't create a false dichotomy when they show a graph of two models side by side vs reality and see how well reality fits the models. A false dichotomy is arguing "if not A then B as there are no other choices". He is not doing that. He is asking "which of model A (commonly held) and B(my model) better fits the data"? People are free to come with a third model.
This is what you're refering to here:
And of course it has bearing. He's arguing based on competing sets and prior probabilities. These are perfectly valid arguments.

Religions and religious beliefs will exist whether or not they are divinely inspired. We know this because the set of mutually contradictory religious beliefs is far larger than the set that can all be true. Religions and belief in god(s) and all manner of superstition will also exist whether or not god(s) exists.

So he's asking: what would you expect religion/God belief to look like in world where it's created by man? What would you expect religion to look like in a world where it's divinely inspired? Provided we can agree on what they'd look like, and we broadly can, I think, he's arguing that this world looks overwhelmingly like the former.

There is no conclusion and he is not presenting a formal deduction or proof. He is saying: which view makes more sense? He is not trying to say "if not that then this", he's saying "I can offer a model of the world that make more sense than yours when applied to this particular observation".

Everything he's presented is perfectly valid as an argument. There aren't any logical fallacies except yours in applying the rules of logic, which is tarding up the thread. If you think something is a false dichotomy, PROVE IT by offering a third option to those offered, and actually add something to the discussion rather than merely criticizing. Merely saying it is a false dichotomy is simply a useless assertion.

Interestingly, I addressed all of your statements in your post. Then you told me you weren't making an argument. Since you're not making an argument, there's no logic to your post. If there were logic, then you'd be making an argument. But you're not.

I'll accept this conditional as soon as you take your own advice.

That's what it means in the context of an assumption. Do you not know what an assumption for an argument is? Also, he literally said "let's assume." I don't know how one would hold "he didn't assume it" while simultaneously dealing in the reality that he said "let's assume." You know... excluded middle and such.

Also, did you miss where he said he wasn't making an argument? Probably. Reading comprehension has never been your gig.

One might reasonably think that the thread title is the conclusion he's trying to reach. It would also be suggested by his OP. But again, reading comprehension.

Yeah, you're being very, very dense.

The "assumption" was not part of the argument. He was saying "let's remove that from consideration. I can still make the comparison this way:..." Your misunderstanding of what he was saying caused you to post this as a summary of his post:
You misunderstood completely what was being said, as your criticism/summary shows.

You can attempt to cover that with derision, but your misunderstanding is for all in the thread to see in post #5. And that's just the beginning of your misunderstanding.

Here's an idea. Rather than meta criticizing, or acting like a school teacher, why not show by example or counterpoint why he is wrong? In others words: why is a religion that so deeply concerns itself with short time span human affairs in the vastness of the cosmos and time not more likely to be human-generated, which is what he asserted? Can you counter that viewpoint meaningfully? If so, why not do so rather than act as logic teacher?

That generates discussion rather than tard up the thread with your (very bad) attempts to put the discussion in a rather absurd box of Logic Rules That Aaron Understands.
No, one might not reasonably think that. If I start a thread offering discussion against say, global warming denial, that does mean that I have to construct a complete and formally structured argument (in fact, there is none such, nor is there for or against man made god). I can however discuss aspects, present models, draw on ideas such as Occam's Razor or probabilities, contrast the plausibility of viewpoints, without presenting a formal logical proof of the title of my thread or implying that what I say proves that by logical argument. This is how most discussion works. You then offer counterpoints in the same spirit. Turning into a high school logic teacher when someone presents a subtle argument is just lol.

If that's what he's saying, then he can use words that mean that. Startinga paragraph with "Let's assume" when the intention is not even to assume that at all is simply bad.

I took on his words as he stated them. If he meant other things, then he should have said those things. It's not my job to read his mind. He's wrong because his argument, as constructed, fails.

It's not more or less likely because of random observations. I'm not going to add to the randomness by making other random claims that have no bearing on the underlying claim in an attempt to counter this directly.

Yes. The best way to counter it *IS* to address this as a matter of logic. All the rest is just a matter of spouting out random claims that are really not the basis for any meaningful conclusions.

But if you're going to conclude something about global warming, you'd better say something meaningful. For example, if this thread were just a matter of "What is God?" or "What is man?" then this would be an entirely different conversation. But there's a very specific conclusion being presented.

Yes, you could spout off random facts. But if you're trying to convince someone that your position is "plausible" you still need to have a coherent argument. Random facts do not an argument make.

There's nothing subtle going on here. These are well-hashed arguments that have been made all over the place. Furthermore, this is like the type of argumentation that stoned college students can come up with. In other words, it's all pretty vacuous.

I can meaninglessly counter this by asking about how it is that a universe bounded by the rules of physics as we understand them are able to combine molecules together to create a self-aware subsystem within it. There's nothing about the rules of physics as we understand them that can in any way generate such a system. Yet here we are. And that might make us special in some sort of way, suggesting that there's something more going on than just the random chance of quantum mechanics.

But this is just meaningless babble.

The bolded confuses me. Are you in fact not aware that there are many formally structured arguments both for and against the existence of a god (eg look at this book)?

Lack of incoherency on my end, or lack of comprehension on his? Though I'll try to be more clear if that helps

Is this a rhetorical question?

Tooth, I've read a lot of your posts, but you've really articulated yourself well here, a lot better than I have. And I'm not saying that because you're agreeing with me (for once) lol.

When an eternal God is a man according to some religion, or resembles a man, or is an image of man, then according to that religion, is man not a special, distinct, superior species of the entire universe?

As ToothSayer mentioned:
... why is a religion that so deeply concerns itself with short time span human affairs in the vastness of the cosmos and time not more likely to be human-generated...

Of course I'm aware of them. But let me throw it back at you. Why have those formal logical arguments not settled the question of God? The answer is because formal logic is worthless for anything other than trivially simple systems (which reality is not).

Reality can't be captured by formal logical arguments. Gödel's incompleteness theorem hasn't yet been elucidated yet for formal logic that I'm aware, but since all logic is basically mathematics, the same idea applies. Formal logic is merely a tool for tweaking models. It does not show a model is wrong. Only reality can do that. There are many classes of statements and arguments that are valid and rational and descriptive of reality, that can't be contained in formal logic.

This is actually something most people understanding instinctively when confronted with formal logic or attempts to argue from pure logic. The wisdom of this instinct only gets lost in the abstraction-heavy arena of academia.

When OP says that most views of God are heavily human-centric, and that this indicates that they're probably human derived, he's making all the following implied arguments:

1. Purely human derived religions are very likely to be human-centric, since we already know that the vast majority of religion that has been invented all over the world is heavily human-centric, and humans have deep and abiding psychological reasons to create human-centric religions and Gods.
1.1 Corollary: If we accept that all the conflicting religious claims cannot all be true, then only a fraction of the world's religious claims are true, which means most are invented by humans.

2. The true nature of the universe (with a creator in it or outside it or pervading it) could take many forms, only a fraction of which are human centric or in which a creator would care about and intervene in the affairs of humans, as most religious texts claim they do.

3. By a simple application of Bayes Theorem, it is far more likely that, when we encounter a human-centric religion, it is purely human derived.

Perhaps that will satisfy the people who can't fill in the gaps and need every single aspect of an argument to be laboriously laid out for them.

2 is a little weak but can be strengthened. It's basically an appeal to the following:

2.1 Symmetry: Most things tend to take a range of possible forms available to them
2.2 Vastness: The range of possible forms generally becomes larger when a system is larger (time is a dimension too)
2.3 Specificness: Highly specific systems tend to be underlied by simpler rules, rules which are also capable of creating different specific systems.
2.4 Visibility: Humans have only seen and comprehended a tiny fraction of reality, and so their minds are abnormally focused on that. However, there is no reason that reality should conform to human minds or wants or psychology, and indeed, history has shown that it hasn't. The more difficult or profound the question, the more it hasn't. And so, if supposedly revealed religions and Gods do conform closely to human minds, this is suspicious

You can delve into this a lot more to strengthen (2), but I'm out of time. The points that OP brings up are very interesting ones if we don't get stuck at the lolbasic level of requiring a formal logical argument similar to the First Cause Argument or their ilk. Human minds are capable of creating deeply complex (and correct) models that can't be captured or understood in formal logic. It would be nice if we could correspond on that level rather than grind things to a halt.

'Human-centric' as opposed to what?

If we took every religious text and replaced every instance of the use of the word 'human', with 'monkey' or 'dolphin', would they then be somehow imbued with greater credibility?

All , and everything, will come from or through a human being. The fact that there are many religions, but not that many, in no way debunks the whole of the many belief systems.

Consider that as humankind evolves his perspective also changes thus bring forth specific religions which are and have been related to the geography of the earth. think of it as the old saw of looking at the tree and the different perspectives are not only different in content but also in perspective.

For an example the appearance of Buddhism at about the 6th century before our current era. Looked at appropriately Buddhism is seen as the apotheosis and culmination of Hinduism . Hinduism is a religion of peoples of the east who obviously evolved in a different way than the Germanic godheads of Thor or Wotan. The Vedas and the Vedanta philosophy are much imbued within a spiritual atmosphere but these RELIGIOUS tomes are not automatically false because they are supposedly seen as in conflict with Olympus of the Greeks.

The state of devotion is important in religion and in fact "religion" is about the "reuniting" of the human soul with the spiritual world, that from which he was born. Each epoch of time, or geography has offered their best in order to bring mankind forth to that state of future development.

Mankind has evolved and an error of understanding is apparent in our times as we only see past and primeval man as ourselves. We somehow believe in evolution but insist on thinking that the man of 1000,2500,4000, ...years ago is basically the same as us only a lot more stupid. LOL I liked to meet the dope that spread this perspective but wait a minute we are the dope ! This subtle belief is spread throughout our thinking process from science to the highest of philosophical systems, but especially science.

Taking a critical or skeptical or cynical approach to the various religions offers nothing to the common core of Man. Attempting to understand is far better , more difficult and complicated but certainly ennobling.

The human being has evolved and we are in the midst of a crass materiality, foreseen long ago in the mystery centers and the way to ennoblement and spiritual development is the Christ within as Paul said "Not I but Christ in me".

We are not talking of abstractions or metaphors but a reality which is implicit within each and every man as he attempts to bring Love into his life. the taking of interest in one's fellow man displays Love manifest which is the sympathetic comprehension of each other as individual human beings.

You can't preach Love and so the previous paragraph is definitely wanting and I hope the best for you that this world picture of Light and Love is perceived throughout.