Morgan Freeman "I think we invented God."

Originally posted by michaelbrux

God is real, true and everlasting. Religion, however, is an entirely different conversation.

Then we go to: "What is God?"

Which actually brings us full circle back to the article.

Originally posted by kaylaluv

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by kaylaluv

We all have to agree that there was an original man - regardless of creation or evolution. Could there not have been an original thought? Since then, we know that man has been replicating himself, so maybe thoughts have just been replicating. It doesn't mean there couldn't have been an original thought, right?

Humans are the smartest of the "self-aware" creatures on this planet. Surely it is feasible to say that the first humans wondered how they got here. Watching themselves give birth, and watching other animals give birth - it's not a stretch to think that early man believed that someone "gave birth" to the entire planet and it's inhabitants. From there, you could just extrapolate on down the line. Parents control their childrens' environment, therefore a creator controls the planet's environment, i.e., weather, crops, natural disasters, etc., etc.

The idea of gods living on Mt Olympus wasn't a stretch. People lived on mountains, and a giant person is just a person who is bigger, stronger, and more powerful than a regular person. Even a magical person is still a physical person who can do things that are magical. The logical break here occurs when the very first invisible and inherently imperceptible person is invented. This is the mysterious logical break that I'm interested in understanding. From there, sure, you can invent whatever you want for this invisible, inherently imperceptible person, but you still have to invent what can't be seen, heard, felt, smelled, or experienced in any way, and as a visceral certainty that has total authority over all that does exist as visible, audible, palpable, and readily experienced by your own brain, and your brain has to allow it.

Cognitive dissonance is extremely aggressive, and research has proven this to be true. If the brain won't buy it as logically familiar, it won't even process it...period. So what "pulled" that notion from nowhere and into the brain of the very first human being (barring the ET influence meme, since that ET would've had to burp up this notion from nothing if this was the case..which doesn't make the question go away) Like I said, this is not a simple question.

OK, how about this? Someone else mentioned that the original God was the sun. This is something you can see and feel. It is obviously very powerful, and controls things like plants, weather, etc. It provides needed warmth and light. It's easy to see how early man would have looked at the sun with awe. The hard part is explaining how early man would have re-fashioned that sun into an invisible person who is omnipotent.

Humans are similar to herding or pack animals. They naturally like to have a leader - an alpha male. They see packs of animals have leaders, and they even have a human leader for their own pack, but is there a more powerful leader for everything? That bright light in the sky must be a leader, because it seems very powerful. It shines its powerful light over everything, so it must be leader of everything. Because humans have experience with themselves as physical beings, they make the link that the sun is a physical being. Yes, it would have to be an original thought, because the sun doesn't look like a physical being. But it IS a physical thing that one can see and feel. Early Man would think the sun was either an animal, a plant (or a rock), or a person, since that is all they have experience with.

The Sun isn't invisible and intelligently interactive with human beings. Also as you said yourself - it's right there in font of you every day. It's not imperceptible. My issue isn't the idea of people inventing a god of some sort. My issue is the imperceptible god concept. It can't be seen or even proven to actually exist, and it requires FAITH to even exist as a concept for people. That's such an inherently inconceivable notion for a primitive brain that I don't even know how to properly present just how unlikely it is that such a notion could emerge of its own volition. We're used to the concept as a fully developed narrative that most of us were carefully taught as being reality since we were children, but the truth is that as an original idea, it's completely incompatible with everything that our brains can possibly take in as external stimuli (which is actually the basis of every thought that any corporeal brain can ever have, whether as the whole of or one of many parts of that thought)

You have to stop and really examine that notion, and compare it to every other notion that is pervasive and omnipresent within the corporeal brain in general. Then again, if you don't care whether the notion of God or a god is true or not, then what difference does it make? Maybe faith in your version of God will do more than what it's done for everyone from saints to suicide bombers - give blunt assurances.

reply to post by NorEaster


I think perhaps you have connotation and denotation confused when it comes to the words "headline" and "surprise".

I think think as you said to me: "duh".

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by michaelbrux

God is real, true and everlasting. Religion, however, is an entirely different conversation.

Then we go to: "What is God?"

Which actually brings us full circle back to the article.

God is the Singularity that exists at the core of the entire Creation.

what you call Reality is the Event Horizon that God wears like a garment.

next question.

Originally posted by michaelbrux
if men created God, not believing in God..first and foremost is a condemnation of the minds of men; not God.

I see it not as a condemnation of the minds, but rather at condemnation of refusal to evolve understanding.

If my ancestors concluded it was a good idea to burn people they thought of witches, am I condemning good ideas by not burning witches today, or am I evolving past the initial thought of it being a good idea to begin with?

You state flatly that god exists.
You have no proof.
I can state flatly god does not exist.
and have equal proof.

But I don't state that...I state the only thing either side honestly knows about..which is that a deity is at the moment, unknown (perhaps its very nature, if there is one, is also unknowable).
One side is being honest here..and it is the side that doesn't require a deity to do good and be honest.
Hows that for irony.

Originally posted by esteay812
reply to post by Chamberf=6

 

I think it could also be plausible that, out of these sessions of deep thought, the un-answerable thoughts that plagued the masses would eventually turn into obsessions and eventually torment a large majority of people at that time.

Out of a need for truth and fulfillment came one of the most important necessities ever realized by our ancestors.

Where there is a necessity, there is a person willing to fill that niche and answer the most troubling questions of that period - for some sort of financial or social status gain, of course.

A respected, but deceitful, member of that community could have worked at great length to create an explanation to account for many of those mysteries - similar to a modern day TOE (Theory of Everything)

If this is indeed something that took place during that time, then it is also plausible that the individual drew large amounts of attention and established a formidable following. Understanding the teachings of this innovative leader, many of the followers may have seen fit to continue his work.

As most everyone here has learned, the stories passed down from elders to newer generations would probably vary from the original telling. Eventually the original stories could have been embellished and expanded to a point that may not even resemble the original stories. Continuing for millennia, these stories continued to morph until they became what we know today as Gd and spirituality.

I understand how the idea of God or a god came about. That's pretty easy, since it does answer a lot of questions. What I don't get is how the INVISIBLE, IMPERCEPTIBLE God, along with an entire INVISIBLE, IMPERCEPTIBLE realm that it lives in, emerged as a concept, let alone achieved the status of a visceral certainty for people who had no way to ever see, hear, touch, smell or experience either this god or this realm.

The premise that I presented involves the fact that the human brain can't naturally embrace an imperceptible presence as reality. It takes something significant to bridge the requirement gap, and while I do not accept the logical plausibility of a "personal god" (as suggested by modern religious traditions), I have to accept the necessity of something having pulled the idea from the realm of logical impossibility into the realm of logical acceptability for this planet's version of the human brain. That's a very important mystery.

Originally posted by michaelbrux

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by michaelbrux

God is real, true and everlasting. Religion, however, is an entirely different conversation.

Then we go to: "What is God?"

Which actually brings us full circle back to the article.

God is the Singularity that exists at the core of the entire Creation.

what you call Reality is the Event Horizon that God wears like a garment.

next question.

Why can't I just call it "singularity of existence"?

Or just "The Event"?

IMO - - the label God has been negatively tainted by man made religion.

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by michaelbrux
if men created God, not believing in God..first and foremost is a condemnation of the minds of men; not God.

I see it not as a condemnation of the minds, but rather at condemnation of refusal to evolve understanding.

If my ancestors concluded it was a good idea to burn people they thought of witches, am I condemning good ideas by not burning witches today, or am I evolving past the initial thought of it being a good idea to begin with?

You state flatly that god exists.
You have no proof.
I can state flatly god does not exist.
and have equal proof.

But I don't state that...I state the only thing either side honestly knows about..which is that a deity is at the moment, unknown (perhaps its very nature, if there is one, is also unknowable).
One side is being honest here..and it is the side that doesn't require a deity to do good and be honest.
Hows that for irony.

burning people to death was never a good idea; nevertheless, if they did it and then at some later date decided that it should not be done. it does indeed show that they are confused. and that their confusion is dangerous to everyone. i've done what i've done and that's it.

even if we are both without proof to support our beliefs...I still have the advantage. if i'm wrong, i'm just embarrassed in the eyes of people i never had respect for anyway. I'd still be rich and powerful and my children beautiful...we will all naturally live longer than everyone else and people will continue to find a reason to query us and put us to the test.

i'm not all that good to be honest...never have been. i'm mean as #. if I stand before God's Throne and answer for my behavior, I do so with a bad attitude.

the only reason you even enjoy the ability to communicate as you are doing right now...is because We believe in God.

not the other way around.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
all concept of morality falls away without a higher power. "without god, all things are permissible".

Absolute Bullocks.

The only people I have heard say this are the ones who are unwilling to take responsibility for their own actions or the actions of others.

i think Mr. Freeman is just believing the stuff he's paid to say on his show "Through The Wormhole"

reply to post by lonewolf19792000


I don't believe anything absolute when it is spoken or written by man. Man is imperfect, and if we are to believe what man has spoken and/or written, what we've come to know as absolute truths are no longer absolute. Who is to say what is true or real? As time and history proves time and time again, humans are not a reliable source.

reply to post by Annee


you asked a question and I answered it.

Wikipedia have excellent entries for the structure of sub-atomic reality and black holes.

While God is no black hole, God is a Singularity.

God is gold in color and shaped like a trapezoid. God is situated in a sky blue and white sky; the Mongols called it the Eternal Blue Heaven and God makes the sound of a Trumpet.

What you call reality is a Garment concealing the Singularity; reality is far more than the Earth but the entire Universe.

its a fact; I saw it and heard it with my own senses.

what you choose to believe outside of that is incorrect. there is nothing to debate about.

Originally posted by michaelbrux
reply to post by daaskapital

 

i'd take a believer over someone who believes in nothing at all any day; weak willed or not.

It is not about being "weak willed", acknowledgement that you are responsible for your actions takes much more will power than laying it at the feet of some god.

You keep on trusting in people that believe in fairy tales.

reply to post by Annee


Annee, I like the way you think!

IMO - - the label God has been negatively tainted by man made religion.

reply to post by mileysubet


when this war on terror came to my doorstep.

Christians gave me a place to sleep at night and food to eat.

no one else did. that's all I really now about them.

Me: "Morgan Freeman, you're an actor. That does not qualify you as an expert on anything except pretending to be someone else. STFU."

At least he qualified it as his opinion, I guess. The problem is, stupid people think that actors' opinions are the truth.

reply to post by AwakeinNM


Let's see, the most stupid people in America who think their opinions really matter: Actors and Politicians!

reply to post by PhoenixDown


I met him at a restaurant in the Memphis area once. Hilariously, he denied that he was actually Morgan Freeman. It was obviously him, though. He even said, in his ever so unmistakable voice, "I get that a lot..."

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
I guess Morgan Freeman never heard the story of Yeshua, who was nailed to a cross for saying he was YHVH and who went to that deathwillingly and refused to recant when given the chance. I think i will believe Yeshua over Mr. Freeman. Mr. Freeman never allowed himself to be nailed to a cross to save anyone.

LOL. So...a bunch of people who have never allowed themselves to be nailed to a cross to "save" anyone have been telling you a story which you accept without question. But when another guy who hasn't ever allowed himself to be nailed to a cross to "save" anyone tells you the opposite you use the FIRST to justify set on non-crucified people as justification for a wholesale disregard of the other non-crucified person.

So...what makes all the non-crucified pastors, reverends, popes, deacons, word so much more "trustworthy"? What about all the people who allegedly wrote the gospels themselves that weren't crucified? Are they full of sh*^t too?

Please help me understand this.

Originally posted by OrphenFire
reply to post by PhoenixDown

 

I met him at a restaurant in the Memphis area once. Hilariously, he denied that he was actually Morgan Freeman. It was obviously him, though. He even said, in his ever so unmistakable voice, "I get that a lot..."

Sure you did. I totally believe you.