There simply isn't the time. If I feel as though whomever I'm corresponding with is actually interested then I will participate, but most of these kinds of arguments are what I call the coconut shy arguments, i.e. you're asked to put up some arguments the sole purpose of which are to serve as targets to those with no real interest in the subject.

Well, I am certainly interested in such subjects and I have found repeatedly that when I make objections or points that would be problematic for your standpoint you often just change the subject by addressing a point I haven't made or otherwise simply cease to engage..

Anyway you obviously don't owe it to anyone to engage or respond, so of course it's up to you.

Yes, of course we all know by now, O would-be Guru, that anyone who disagrees with you, or even has the temerity to ask you to present and justify the reasoning supporting your claims, has failed to understand. — Janus

For me it seems odd that these sorts of things could be worked out by assessing claims on paper or on screen. Of course both theists and atheists seem to think this or it seems implicit since they engage in arguments like this as if it could be resolved with way. And by way, I mean primarily non-experiential verbal interchanges. Rather than say experience based practices and immersion. Of course people do this 'in the East' also, argue things, but in the East, say with many versions of Hinduism, the idea of practice and experience is central to understanding. Is there interest? Well, practice for a while, engage and experience, see if you have continued interest and perhaps the experiences lead to a sense of what people mean and your own beliefs. Or not.

But here in the West it seems like 'if God is the case' then it should be demonstrable online via words. Or if you are rational to believe, this should be demonstrable. I think there are pretty mundance things that don't work like this. That you could learn how to ride a bike, falling in love, synaesthesia on pot, how intimacy can be achieved, how to improve your golf swing...

I mean I get that these examples are not where there is a big ontological controversy. My point is not, see those are the same. My point is about learning, changing minds.

It is as if experience has nothing to do with such things.

'nihil ultra ego'
Literally "nothing outside of the 'I'", but I'm not familiar with the reference either

It's an observation of the default philosophy of secular individualism.

Thanks for that. :smile:

Yes, of course we all know by now, O would-be Guru, that anyone who disagrees with you, or even has the temerity to ask you to present and justify the reasoning supporting your claims, has failed to understand. — Janus

Thanks J. And here I thought I was creating the opportunity for him to explain his ideas (even if I matched Wayfarer's slightly rude demeanor). Ah well.

I'm not sure what you're driving at. I don't deny there are spiritual practices, and I have no criticism of those whatsoever. I also have no criticism of those who simply cleave to their faiths without question. But if you come on here and make claims about the existence of God, about how God is, about what's wrong with science, about what the cause of human alienation and despair is, and so on; then you'd better have decent arguments to support your claims, you'd better welcome critique with the hope that you might learn something new or extra, or come to revise your views. Otherwise what use is discussion?

:cool:

I thought I was creating the opportunity for him to explain his ideas — ZhouBoTong

OK I will try.

There is in current culture an implicit dichotomy around religious ideas; it is expected that one is either a believer or one is not. Believers are respected on the liberal grounds of 'individual right of conscience', (as Janus acknowledges) although the secular attitude is tacitly that the content of their belief must be subjective or social; to believe otherwise betrays secularism; there can't be anything real in it, as to believe so is to thrown in your lot with the believers (isn't it?)

But I have always tried to resist this dichotomy, which I think is very much due to the cultural dynamics of Christianity, and Protestantism in particular.

After all in Protestantism, exclusive emphasis is put on salvation by faith alone. Right belief, 'ortho-doxa' is of utmost importance (although ultimately for Calvinists, even that is no guarantee of salvation.) Along with that undercurrent, is the general tendency to conceive of God as being like a celestial director or magistrate.

Against that background the only two options seem to be either acquiescing to belief or rejecting it altogether. After all, to believe is to be required to believe in a very particular way. And obviously the secular thinker has decided for rejection so the whole question is done and dusted.

So the upshot is, there is a hard line when it comes to what is regarded as "supernatural". It is, by definition, a kind of cultural taboo; not only taboo, but something for which even the appropriate metaphors can no longer be found. So this shows up in many of the threads here about religion, by secular people who haven't much actual grounding in it; not sure what is at stake, but certain that it must be ultimately fallacious or superseded or archaic.

So, that leads to exchanges where the "secular" view has a kind of presumptive authority, like, "if you're going to defend the notion of an "invisible being" then you'd better have some kind of evidence!" What this doesn't see is that, first, many are drawn to religions out of necessity, the realisation of the existential plight of everyday life; and if you don't feel that necessity, then it's always going to seem incomprehensible. Second, to really grasp what it has that has been rejected by secular modernity takes considerable imagination and study. In times past, everyone was 'religious', in that the world was simply understood to have emanated from or been created by a divine source. It only became conceivable to challenge that due to particular developments in Western culture of the last several hundred years. So a lot of what us moderns take for granted about the nature of things might be inconcievable to our forbears (and visca versa, to be fair. And this doesn't mean that modernity is all bad or all wrong; I'm starting to conceive of these issues in terms of being "the shadow the Enlightenment" but that's another story.)

The upshot is, the meaning of some of the fundamental attitudes of philosophical theology are so remote from our own experience, that they are dismissed as sophistry or rationalisation - exactly as above. Whereas, the claims of 'scientific atheism' are regarded as well-founded, practically self-evident, based on things that 'everyone knows', or should know. So, then, trying to challenge this received wisdom (or what poses as wisdom) is often futile.

Hence my reticence.

Fair enough. I wasn't saying you shouldn't ask for arguments, and in a sense I am chiding both sides (I realize there are nuances in these sides and invidual variations) for, in these discussions, acting as if some kind of verbal demonstration should be possible if there is a God and believing can be rational. So, I wasn't say 'bad Janus'. Nor did I think you denied that there were practices. It just seemed like an assumption, perhaps on both your parts, that changing people's minds or a person changing their mind would be based on exchanges of rational arguments. I think that is a very, very limited and ineffective method, even for mundane learning experiences or changing one's mind, let alone when one's ontology is being challenged. I think without the experiential and without interest in actually learning experientially it is a fairly doomed process. Now of course that process might be interesting and there is nothing wrong, if both parties are interested, in giving it the old college try. But I think it should be in the context that 1) it is an extremely limited process 2) it's a small part of all sorts of learning, which tends to include the experiential. So the discussion would be held with this in the air and less conclusions would be drawn from inability to change anyone's mind.

I think a key term is 'incommensurability'. In other words, the differences between the secular~scientific worldview and a non-materialist worldview are such that they can't even really discuss the same ideas, as they are from different domains of discourse. 'One of the most controversial claims to emerge from Kuhn’s assertions about the incommensurability of scientific theories is that the proponents of different paradigms work in different worlds'. It’s something like that in this discussion.

Philosophy, in my book, requires a cognitive shift, akin to a conversion experience; the Greeks called it metanoia. But you can only understand that by undergoing it; it's not communicable in the abstract. Much of what is preserved in religious lore are symbolic and analogical references to this, which are now unmoored from their original meaning. Hence, as mythologist Joseph Campbell put it,

Half the people in the world think that the metaphors of their religious traditions...are facts. And the other half contends that they are not facts at all. As a result we have people who consider themselves "believers" because they accept metaphors as facts, and we have others who classify themselves as "atheists" because they think religious metaphors are lies.

Thou Art That: Transforming Religious Metaphor

OK I will try. — Wayfarer

Thanks Wayfarer. You will see from my response that I am interested, but as you are already aware, I obviously do not exactly understand, or at least have certain questions. And yes, we are ALL unlikely to entirely change our viewpoint based on this discussion, but maybe I can add a few more doubts or uncertainties (I already have plenty, but happy to add more).

it is expected that one is either a believer or one is not. — Wayfarer

What about those pesky agnostics? They seem to think they are neither, haha.

But more seriously, I can admit that my life is full of beliefs. But I only have faith in things that some other human knows (the extraordinarily advanced math that underlays a lot scientific understanding would be a fine example) or that experience has shown me to be true (the sun will rise tomorrow). I don't have any faith in things that are entirely unknown...why would I? No one has ever given me a single reason to believe such things (if Pascal's Wager is actually the BEST argument, then that basically means there is no argument). I get that many atheists seem to act like they have NO beliefs, but if they are pushed, I think you will find their actual view is closer to what I described above, with some semantic misunderstanding. Similar to Theists that KNOW for sure there IS a god. All they have told me for sure, is that they do not know the definition of KNOW.

Uh, oh. This could get real long (it did). That should be enough (way too much?) about where I am coming from. I will try to focus on your points and the aspects of those points that I don't understand.

there can't be anything real in it, as to believe so is to thrown in your lot with the believers (isn't it?) — Wayfarer

I get that some atheists go to far with this attitude. As far as I am concerned, "there can't be anything real in it" is pure belief. "I don't know of anything real in it" or "I have never been shown anything that leads me to consider that there may be something real in it" are simply true statements that say nothing about whether there is or is not a god. And a semantically careful atheist would be aware of this and use those latter statements.

But I have always tried to resist this dichotomy, which I think is very much due to the cultural dynamics of Christianity, and Protestantism in particular. — Wayfarer

I do not understand this part. I do not know of any Christian non-believers...how could someone call themselves christian and a non-believer? They could go to church. They could tell their wife they are christian. But if they don't believe in the god of abraham or that jesus was his son who died for the sins of mankind, then they don't meet the definition of christian...right? Well I just looked up the definition and apparently if you were baptised, you are christian. So that makes me a Catholic Christian Agnostic Atheist. Seems nonsensical...?

After all in Protestantism, exclusive emphasis is put on salvation by faith alone. Right belief, 'ortho-doxa' is of utmost importance (although ultimately for Calvinists, even that is no guarantee of salvation.) Along with that undercurrent, is the general tendency to conceive of God as being like a celestial director or magistrate. — Wayfarer

This all makes sense and sounds familiar. (I always disliked this idea within Christianity as child - "wait so being good has nothing to do with it, why not?" - add in the idea of predestination and it gets double problematic).

Against that background the only two options seem to be either acquiescing to belief or rejecting it altogether. — Wayfarer

I still can't see a third option. I often spend time trying to show agnostics that they lack belief, so can we just admit they are technically agnostic atheists. I think this is where we will struggle to see eye to eye. "Do you believe in 'x'?" I don't see an answer that makes sense besides yes or no. Notice, I could respond, "I don't even know what 'x' is", well if I have never heard of something, surely I don't believe in it. If someone was to explain it, then maybe I can admit, "oh, actually, I do sort of believe that" but we can't believe in things we don't know of. Now 'know of' is different from 'knowing'. I can know of, and therefor believe in, say quantum physics without actually understanding it. I would think most religious beliefs function in this way.

After all, to believe is to be required to believe in a very particular way. — Wayfarer

?? Hopefully, I have already said enough to show that I do not limit belief in the way described above.

And obviously the secular thinker has decided for rejection so the whole question is done and dusted. — Wayfarer

Now I get that it comes across this way much of the time. But many atheists (most on this site), have not decided anything. Decide what? Notice many atheists here go so far as to question the question. Why should we even begin to wonder if there is a god? What is this entity called god anyway? 'Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy' somewhat captures this attitude.

It is just that no one (or no thing) has ever shown us anything that would lead us to believe there is a god. (but after decades of having the same arguments, they may get short in their responses)

So the upshot is, there is a hard line when it comes to what is regarded as "supernatural". It is, by definition, a kind of cultural taboo; not only taboo, but something for which even the appropriate metaphors can no longer be found. So this shows up in many of the threads here about religion, by secular people who haven't much actual grounding in it; not sure what is at stake, but certain that it must be ultimately fallacious or superseded or archaic. — Wayfarer

I do catch myself over-using 'supernatural'. However, by definition if something is 'super-natural' then it is above or outside nature and CAN'T be known. Now you may be saying that by labeling 'god' as supernatural then it is sequestered into the realm of knowledge that CAN'T be know, while you are trying to suggest that it can be know...therefor it is not supernatural. I am cool with that. You will still have to show me something to elicit any sort of a belief out of me, but I can try to be more careful with my words along these lines...AM I SORT OF UNDERSTANDING THIS PART CORRECTLY?

So, that leads to exchanges where the "secular" view has a kind of presumptive authority, like, "if you're going to defend the notion of an "invisible being" then you'd better have some kind of evidence!" — Wayfarer

OK! I think I get the problem a little better because I am definitely guilty of this one. However, what I really mean when I come across this way is, "if you expect ME to believe any of this stuff about an 'invisible being' then you'd better have some kind of evidence". But depending on the words of the person I am debating with, it may get phrased closer to how you said it. However, I am sure you get a bit snippy too, when an atheist says the same thing you have heard 50 times before.

many are drawn to religions out of necessity, the realisation of the existential plight of everyday life; and if you don't feel that necessity, then it's always going to seem incomprehensible. — Wayfarer

Agreed until 'incomprehensible'. I can understand that people have that need, despite not having it myself. What does that have to do with whether or not a religion is right? Saying, "there must be a god because many people think there is and it makes them feel good" seems pretty week. It is a type of evidence, but it is evidence through reasoning...and like I said, I don't find that reasoning particularly sharp.

Second, to really grasp what it has that has been rejected by secular modernity takes considerable imagination and study. — Wayfarer

Sounds like a word game to wall-off those who disagree. And all the religious would be atheist if they just used a bit more critical thinking, right?

In times past, everyone was 'religious' — Wayfarer

Hmmm, we can agree with most (maybe. that is a lot of history you just covered with 'in the past'), but when the penalty for disbelief is death or being ostracized, it would have been tough to get an actual count. Also, the modern world shows that 90%+ of all humans are just going to believe the same thing as their parents, whether it is religion, politics, or sports teams.

It only became conceivable to challenge that due to particular developments in Western culture of the last several hundred years. — Wayfarer

The scientific method? Seems like it has been pretty beneficial in every other area of life. No real surprise it got applied to religion.

So a lot of what us moderns take for granted about the nature of things might be inconcievable to our forbears — Wayfarer

While society has changed, people have not. Anything our ancestors understood, we can too (and some people alive still do) and vice versa (society has accumulated knowledge that no one person could know, but that is different). It may take a while to learn, but what type of knowledge was known in the past that we can't know today? Why should we assume our ancestors had extra knowledge into "the nature of things" that we should value? Any valuable insights were likely passed down, right?

The upshot is, the meaning of some of the fundamental attitudes of philosophical theology are so remote from our own experience, that they are dismissed as sophistry or rationalisation — Wayfarer

Since I obviously do not even get what you are trying to say with this type of stuff, can you give examples? And know that I am likely to go through them and say why I think they are sophistry or not - then you can tell me why my description of that example as sophistry is wrong - then we can look at the definition of sophistry - then either one of us sees that we weren't using the word sophistry right or nobody learned anything and we move on to the next issue KNOWING that each side has everything they need to form their opinion.

Whereas, the claims of 'scientific atheism' are regarded as well-founded, practically self-evident, based on things that 'everyone knows', or should know. So, then, trying to challenge this received wisdom (or what poses as wisdom) is often futile. — Wayfarer

You spend too much time around philosophy people. Do you live in America? Why don't you just talk to the 80% to 90% of people that agree with you? If you live in Europe, it may be a bit tougher, but you can still probably assume that 30-40% of the population agrees with you (I would actually think it closer to 60-70% if you really push people on their beliefs, but Europeans are more likely to default to the secularism is right thing). Our government constantly belittles scientific atheism...with atheists being just about the least represented group in the country (I do suspect more politicians are atheist but they are smart enough to lie as no atheist gets elected in this country).

'scientific atheism' — Wayfarer

one thing at a time. You will likely get less of a gut dismissal if you separate those 2 words. Most students that went to school these days will believe science (Thank Apollo), but may still be religious and count that as outside the view of science. Even if they are not religious, they may still admit that the atheism question cannot be entirely answered by science. But if you say 'scientific atheism' they may latch onto the science part and say something along the lines of "well you are happy to embrace science when it gives you a smart phone, but then dismiss it when it is inconvenient".

are regarded as well-founded, practically self-evident, based on things that 'everyone knows', or should know. So, then, trying to challenge this received wisdom (or what poses as wisdom) is often futile. — Wayfarer

As far as I know, the only proven method for accumulating knowledge is the scientific method? It has been honed over the years to be as complete and useful as possible. Now this is separate from atheism, but if you are challenging received wisdom, you are challenging that evidence has been gathered. What new evidence do you have that will get me to reconsider the already collected evidence? Notice we are open to hearing new arguments/evidence, however, if we are told to reconsider without evidence, our response may sound dogmatic.

Hence my reticence — Wayfarer

I can understand that in general. How many negative experiences does one have to have before they change their behavior. And while you may have been wrong to assume my disinterest, it was probably safe to assume that I actually am not THAT open to changing my view. We could have this discussion for 20 pages and I may still have the same view, but I would not have kept it up for 20 pages if I wasn't interested and learning something (even if all I am learning is how someone like you views the world - in this case there is the potential for me to learn a 3rd way of looking at belief - I still don't get it - but I will try).

Holy Zeus, that was a long one.

Half the people in the world think that the metaphors of their religious traditions...are facts. And the other half contends that they are not facts at all. As a result we have people who consider themselves "believers" because they accept metaphors as facts, and we have others who classify themselves as "atheists" because they think religious metaphors are lies. — Wayfarer

if the metaphors are JUST metaphors, then lie or not, aren't we done here? There would be no debate as all atheists think the bible is JUST stories (analogy, metaphor, whatever you want to call it). So clearly you and that author mean A LOT more than JUST metaphor. Again, careful word selection is key.

What is the implied 3rd option? The metaphors are half-truths (sounds like someone is still half right)?

Are the 'metaphors' about an actual god? Surely, if there IS an actual god, and said being DID want the bible written, then some of it is NOT metaphor? "I am he who is called I am." What is the metaphor in this line if there actually is a god?

Well I just did some brief research on Joseph Campbell and the book you quoted and I am even more confused. Was Campbell an atheist/agnostic? His books seem to focus on myth, and he seems to treat Christianity the same as the greek religions and everything else. Are you trying to propose like a spiritual 'god is nature' type deal? I don't think the bible offers anything, metaphor or not, that supports that - or at least no more support than say Walden by Thoreau.

Campbell also gets into that Carl Jung archetypal hero nonsense that somehow gets massive respect, despite it not really working unless it is applied to Odysseus and only Odysseus. (sorry angry side tangent from my trauma in English classes)

Thanks for a very thoughtful response. As you said discussions of this topic can become very lengthy so I will try and limit my reply to a few of what I see as key points.

But I have always tried to resist this dichotomy, which I think is very much due to the cultural dynamics of Christianity, and Protestantism in particular.
— Wayfarer

I do not understand this part. — ZhouBoTong

Where I came into this subject was through belief in enlightenment, which I didn't equate to 'religion' at all. 60's counter-culture, the Beatles, and LSD. Sgt Peppers, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, Timothy Leary, and Paramahansa Yogananda. Two key books were by counter-culture historian (and the author that invented the term 'counter-culture') Theodore Roszak. The key was the pursuit of spiritual insight/experience. At that time, I had nothing but scorn for 'churchianity' - the idea was, you could learn by experience what was the original spiritual dynamic that later got ossified into dogma. (My view changed over the subsequent years, however, as the elusiveness of these experiences became more apparent, and as I began to recognise the wisdom in Christian Platonism, in particular.)

But in any case, the point that remained was scepticism about belief, but openness to 'the spiritual'. (It's sometimes described as 'spiritual but not religious' but there are many porous boundaries.) So I never wanted to be 'a believer' - I viewed belief as a kind of cop-out. But I have also never accepted philosophical or scientific materialism.

So I didn't want to be either 'believer' or 'atheist', but, due to being open to the spiritual, I'm nearer the former than the latter.

when the penalty for disbelief is death or being ostracized, it would have been tough to get an actual count. — ZhouBoTong

Another facet of the cultural dynamics that I'm referring to, is owed to the role of religious authority in Western culture. It was compulsory to believe very specific dogmas, such as the Nicene Creed. So much about the advent of secularism is explained by the reaction against that.

But again, the alternative and Eastern spiritual movements I discovered had a very different attitude - more experiential, more about 'seeing' and less about 'believing'. ('ehi-passiko' is a Buddhist term, meaning 'come and see'. See also Dharma and Religion).

But what I meant by 'everyone being religious' was not simply that everyone accepted the creed. It was the natural sense that we all were indeed 'children of the Divine' and the sense that the world and everything in it, was related by sonship and kinship; it was a completely different sense of what life means. It wasn't even articulated or conscious, it was simply the accepted background, and it wasn't until the advent of modernity that it became possible to imagine a meaningless, material universe. That awareness was behind a great deal of 20th century art, literature, drama, and philosophy:

if you say 'scientific atheism' they may latch onto the science part and say something along the lines of "well you are happy to embrace science when it gives you a smart phone, but then dismiss it when it is inconvenient". — ZhouBoTong

I'm referring to 'the scientific world-view' personified by popular atheist intellectuals - Dennett, Dawkins, et al. Science is not the issue, but scientism, or the treatment of science as a replacement for religion, which happens an awful lot in our culture, is definitely an issue. So more than happy to embrace science, especially in the areas of climate change, medicine, new energy sources, and so on. Science is indispensable but scientia is not sapientia, and it takes wisdom to know the difference. In fact too often our culture doesn't even recognise the difference.

Re metaphors - the reason for mythology, is that it conveys truths that are impossible to say literally. 'Well, what "truths"?' you will ask? And the answer is: can't say, but they're important! They are intuitions about the human condition, that are impossible to articulate precisely, but are felt in the depths of being. Of course scientistic types will dismiss all such talk.

I still don't get it - but I will try. — ZhouBoTong

I see that, that's why I am trying to reciprocate. I know mine represents a minority view but will generally attempt to argue for it and defend it.

I know mine represents a minority view but will generally attempt to argue for it and defend it. — Wayfarer

I think you’re doing fine.

know of three mainstream religions which may be said to believe in the "mosaic" God - Judaism, Christianity and Islam — BrianW

Is this correct? I know that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam believe in the Abrahamic God, just by virtue of Ishmael and Isaac having the same father (Abraham) and Christianity being an offshoot of Judaism, but are you saying that Islam follows the OT (the 5 books of Moses and the Mosaic traditions)?

If the Muslim tradition breaks at Abraham and doesn't follow forward from there to Moses, then it's arguable whether Islam and Jews (and Christians) worship the same god, considering the substantial changes in the concept of the deity over time.

Anyway, I realize I'm harping on a side issue, but you made a claim about Islam that I wasn't aware of, but maybe it was just an error on your part. I don't know.

Moses and Jesus are both honored as prophets in Islam.

There is no such thing as a "mosaic" God.

are you saying that Islam follows the OT (the 5 books of Moses and the Mosaic traditions)? — Hanover

Yeah. I know they follow the ten commandments and also most of the laws stated in those five books by Moses.

In some places, they still try to apply laws such as:- stoning adulterers to death, cutting the arm of a thief, etc.

There is no such thing as a "mosaic" God. — frank

The conception of God (and His behavior) changed over time, particularly after Moses' departure after Exodus. So, reference to the Mosaic God does reference something distinct.

The conception of God (and His behavior) changed over time, particularly after Moses' departure after Exodus. So, reference to the Mosaic God does reference something distinct. — Hanover

How is the God of Abraham different from the God of Moses?

And since Jews have traditionally held that Moses wrote Genesis, how do they account for the change?

How is the God of Abraham different from the God of Moses?

And since Jews have traditionally held that Moses wrote Genesis, how do they account for the change? — frank

If you turn to Orthodox Judaism, you are left with the strange belief that the Torah was written entirely by God through Moses. (See Maimonides 8th principle of faith: https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/332555/jewish/Maimonides-13-Principles-of-Faith.htm). That is a statement of faith and it cannot be argued, but is a matter of acceptance.

It's fairly clear the Torah was written by 100s of people over thousands of years and that there are 4 or more books edited together to form what we have today. Stories are duplicated in different texts with variations and events occurring out of order sometimes. It's a matter of Biblical scholarship.

The God of the Torah evolves over time, from being the most powerful of all gods (the concept of monolatry) to being the only god (the concept of monotheism). There are passages that refer to other gods, and it's fairly clear there were two gods described in the Torah, Yahweh of priestly origin described by the Levites and El of Israeli origins. It does seem that the Levites were the only group actually enslaved in Israel (and far less than 1,000,000 of them as described in the bible) and when they arrived in Israel, they melded their respective gods together to form the monotheistic religion we have today.

Obviously the evolution of God isn't something believed in by people of faith, but if you read the book as a book and you interpret it like all other ancient texts, you aren't left with the views espoused by the faithful.

So how is the Abrahamic God different from the Mosaic one?

So how is the Abrahamic God different from the Mosaic one? — frank

This is an interesting question.

Moses said to God, “Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is his name?’ Then what shall I tell them?

God said to Moses, “I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I am has sent me to you.’”

God also said to Moses, “Say to the Israelites, ‘The Lord, the God of your fathers—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob—has sent me to you.’

(Exodus 3:13-15)

Why is there a question of God's name? There are several different names for gods in the Hebrew Bible. Monotheism is often assumed and following this the names are taken to be different names for the same god, but monotheism was a later development. In other words, the problem Moses faces is which god will the people to heed. The answer avoids names and says instead that the god of your fathers is the same god, the god of Abraham, the god of Isaac, and the god of Jacob. Moses unites the various stories and beliefs that developed over time among the Egyptian Jews.

But the Jews of Exodus may be a myth. In other words, it is not a unification that occurred historically in this way but rather through the myths, which include not only this story but the weaving together of various stories that were compiled and edited to form the books of the Hebrew Bible.

The verse, 'I AM THAT I AM', was frequently cited by the Vedanta guru, Sri Ramana Maharishi, to indicate the essential unity of the Biblical teaching with the Vedanta's Brahman. Of course, Christians would generally be expected to object to such a suggestion, however there were several Christian monks who became followers of Ramana and practiced a kind of cross-cultural hybrid of Christian-Vedanta (notably Swami Abhishiktenanda and Father Bede Griffith, whom I saw speak just before his death in 1993).

For example, compare the early God who has children who have sex with humans:

Genesis 6:4

"In those days, and for some time after, giant Nephilites lived on the earth, for whenever the sons of God had intercourse with women, they gave birth to children who became the heroes and famous warriors of ancient times."

To the later monotheistic God:

Deuteronomy 6:4

"Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord."

The evolution of God moves from direct interaction in human affairs, to just direct communication, to communication only through prophets, to silence.

The primitive Yahweh even had a wife named Asherah. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/42154769/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/did-god-have-wife-scholar-says-he-did/

Such is the mythology upon which our society is built.

A couple of differences: Abraham speaks face to face with his god. He makes a bargain with him and questions his morality in destroying Sodom and Gamorrah. Moses would be destroyed if he were in the direct presence of his god. His god must appear to him in a burning bush. Moses' god gives the people the Law.

It is also worth mentioning the Jacob wrested with god. For some this is a defining characteristic of Judaism - the struggle to know God. Here too the question of names arises - both the changing of Jacob's name to Israel and the refusal of whoever it was that he wrestled with to tell him his name. Replying:

Why do you ask my name? (Genesis 32:29

The question of names and what something is is a recurring theme, starting with finding suitable mate for Adam:

The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”

Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. (Genesis 2:18-19)

"Do you believe in 'x'?" I don't see an answer that makes sense besides yes or no. — ZhouBoTong

There are three possibilities: you actively believe "X", you actively disbelieve "X" or you withhold judgement and neither believe nor disbelieve "X'.

"if you expect ME to believe any of this stuff about an 'invisible being' then you'd better have some kind of evidence" — ZhouBoTong

There is no possible evidence or reason outside of your own experience that could, or should, make you a believer in anything beyond the empirical. What constitutes evidence or reason within your own experience cannot but be a matter just for you, and in this regard you are beholden to no one else unless you choose to be, or you lack the resources to critique and resist social influences.

Moses unites the various stories and beliefs that developed over time among the Egyptian Jews. — Fooloso4

I agree with what you've said here, and the theory is that the Egyptian Jews were the Levites, the priests, descendants of Moses, and the ones who were in Egypt at the time of enslavement.

"Levi" means attached or joined, arguably meaning they joined the Israelites later and brought their God to them. The names of every Levite in the Bible is of Egyptian origin.

To the later monotheistic God:

Deuteronomy 6:4

"Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord." — Hanover

This is a henotheistic god, the one god of the people. The first statement of monotheism occurs in Isaiah:

“This is what the Lord says—
Israel’s King and Redeemer, the Lord Almighty:
I am the first and I am the last;
apart from me there is no God. (Isaiah 44:6)

The quote from Deuteronomy says "our God".

In the Ten Commandments:

Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

That is not to say that there are no other gods but that you should not put other gods first.