The believability of a god or the gullibility of its followers is not the issue. Upon examination the resurrection of Jesus
is just about as goofy sounding as any other cultist belief, but it is lent credibility by thousands of years of observance and faithful belief.
and I tussled with the problem of Pragmatic Palpability
for some time in the wacky box
. Most of us eventually agreed that the deeds done in a deities name made their existence palpable. I won't rehash the paradigm that moJoe has already so clearly stated. My concern is that some people, like Hermetic
are not so much disagreeing as they are becoming tangled in the definition of the word "real". Zool
is not a god. Samhain
is a god. The as yet unnamed deity represented by the Heavens Gate
cult, may be a god.
A careful review of moJoe's original w/u will reveal his assertion that a deity
, of any type, is made "real", or palpable, not by whether its origin is based on fact or fancy, but rather by the intentions and deeds of its followers.
Jesus may well have been a "real", flesh and blood man. That does not make his godhood any more "real". However, the actions committed in his name and for his faith lend credence to his godliness
If Zool, happened to gain a faithful following who committed acts in his name, then in time he would be "real". You could no more point to Zool than you could to Jesus, but you could point to his believers and to the remains of his followers actions, just as you could to Jesus’ followers.
An Oversimplified Analogy
The wind has no presence other than the measure of its passing
. The wind is not "real" until we witness the scattering of trailer park
s in its wake.