Why? That relies on a previous conception of Anu and Padomay as static forces. Why must they be so?



Again, why? Why is it infeasible to suggest that some myths simply got a few things wrong and were never corrected? Must the gods always be looking over mortals' shoulders to grade their work?

It was theorized in this forum that the myths have a core of truth because mortals, being descendants of the Et'Ada, have subconscious memories of the events.

The Anuad doesn't cover the existence of the et'Ada before the creation of Mundus. These spirits were aware of the world before creation and presumably passed this information on to their children - mortals. If Padomay could act, then why would there be all the myths about Lorkhan (the Soul of Padomay) doing what Padomay did? The spirits surely would have observed the difference between Lorkhan and Padomay.



Both the death of gods and their departure are significant events. You could assume that they only observed parts of the whole history, but they're not the sort of events that get added by mistake. Especially not because people were around to watch it and aren't relating fanciful stories but history.



That would certainly solve all those discussions people are having about religion, and yet not asking god for a confirmation is seen as a sign of faith. If there was ever a good way to know that you're being conned, there it is.

The et'Ada don't rely on faith, allot of cultures actually paint them as their ancestors. There actually is nothing against humbly apologizing to mother Morwha for not listening closely at the campfire ask if she could set you straight.

---

Dug up two threads slightly related. Among other things it touches on the aspect of the gods being mutable now while they shouldn't be as they once were et'Ada allong with the Daedra.

http://www.gamesas.com/bgsforums/index.php?showtopic=422404
http://www.gamesas.com/bgsforums/index.php?showtopic=485557

They're all wrong. The Khajiit called Anu, Padomay and Padomay, Anu, but that's not just an error, it tells us something about them. Likewise the way the Altmer call Anu, Anuiel and Anuiel+Padomay, Anu.

We don't know who wrote the Anuad though. It was originally posted as an Ayleid (Bosmeri) Creation Myth, but it doesn't seem to be very typical for either.

It was mainly an invitation into the realm, a one-way gateway. However, with permission from Sheogorath one such as the player can return through the Gateway. So long as those who come out are not Daedric, it likely violates no pacts. Sheogorath wants people to come in, not out, and violating a pact will prevent him from doing such.

Here's your answer from proweller about how that possibility exists Wierd: For argument's sake if you accept that the wellspring of all these ideas was the et'Ada then it is just a matter of 5 widely differing cultures and races all drawing from the same source and interpreting them according to their own cultural bias - that does not prove those 5 cultures or the et'Ada for that matter got it right.

.~~~.

There is another question that might be posited here:

Is it possible that just as the Daedra are said to retain their memories when 'killed', that being the difference between Daedra and mortals who do not retain memories normally (cf ghosts and other forms of undead) that likewise if the original spirits that were not Daedra and that tend to be described as the 'Gods' were also able to retain a substantial portion of their memories and substance before they were 'recreated within the mundus as the 'modern Gods' or Aedra are therefore different beings and yet the same?

Presumably then it is those Gods who are imprisoned by the Mundus even more so than the Leaping Demon King.

If this is true then some part of Daebryn's thesis must be considered valid - as then one might say that the Mundus is that part of Obliviuon where memory dies.

While it shows that we can't confirm or falsify Mankars claim about the Aedra, it doesn't show that it is merely a myth -a fanciful story- as Crimson Paladin argued.

So? In the real world there are very divergent cultures with flood myths. Common myths simply mean that they must have originally been derived from the same source.

The same source- our divine ancestors who witnessed the events firsthand.

First of all, I'm pretty certain that neither Anu nor Padomay explained it themselves, and since the Aedra and Daedra were formed somewhere along the line, they couldn't have witnessed anything that had happened beforehand. And that's assuming that the information actually comes from them.

It seems to me like a futile argument either way, people believe what they will. There is no proof, no reason, or logic. Faith and belief do not require any such things. But here is one question for you, the only people who may know the truth and could confirm or deny the myths are in fact the Daedra themselves. Has no one in the thousands of years Tamriel has been around thought to simply ask them? Of course whether or not the Daedra can be trusted creates a problem in and of itself, but everything I've seen suggests that under the right circumstances a Daedric Prince could be bound by some unknown rules and do usually keep their word when a deal is made with mortals. So why not?

You take certain things on faith, or you know nothing. You can kick established views around for mental exercise and we won't be able to refute your arguments, but mostly because they're irrelevant.

It's not a matter of faith, though. There's more evidence for the cosmological scheme then there is for the existence of Reman. Not to mention there's all sorts of corroborating studies going on into the cosmological structure. There' noticeable dichotomies that seem to permeate throughout the entire mythos, and a philosophical endeavour to surmount it; Mananauts exploring the Aether, and Moth Priests evaporating when they ponder the Manichean structure of the universe too deeply; Demi-gods like Vehk walking around and saying "this is how it was", and he himself getting his powers from a dead god's heart I saw with my own eyes; Others, like Pelinal, as visible incarnations of divinity, reportedly saying quizzical things, like "We will [show] our true faces... [which eat] one another in amnesia each Age", only comprehendible by virtue of knowing the cosmology, and again another example of the incessant dichotomy of the universe; Other people imitating the gods, either by becoming them, or building Towers that work through harnessing symbolic associations; People breaking time when they try to alter the Time God, and reproducing in the 2nd Era what tradition states happened during the Dawn Era. Exactly which part of the cosmology is within doubt? Because while specifics might be scarce, contributing to varied cultural interpretations, generalities seem a given.

Some of this might be refutable, but history has never really been irrefutable. Often it must work from texts that it knows to be fallible. Not to mention that we're not discussing history, we're discussing fiction, and if someone says something enough times in fiction, then it's true. A constantly repeated lie is much more than just a perverse joke. With so many sources written that say the same thing, or corroborate it, reinforce it and develop upon it, you'd have to be the world's greatest thicky to deny that maybe the writer is trying to tell you something earnestly.

Dieary of a sceptic

Faith and belief

Many believe that to be accepted Faith must be questioned. Can faith be strong without undergoing 'trials' to temper it? That appears to be the lesson in many religious texts.

Yet faith is also seen as requiring a total suspension of judgement - and as simply acceptance in the face of whatever.

As outsiders in the face of so many conflicting beliefs that are apparently based on a sense of another (presumably extinct) race's own beliefs about itself and the cosmos I believe we have to remain sceptical of any and all theories put forward - unless we can return to that earliest age and verify with our own senses.

As is clearly shown that the convergencies in the beliefs of these several races may all be simply rooted in that fact that they had the same source, and that source was persuasive. But persuasive and correct are not necessarily the same thing.

What we are faced with is a set of incomplete accounts where vital primary evidence is missing.

To find a range of parameters that will allow us to narrow down the possibilities I think we may have to look outside the content of that system to the nature of the surrounding reality - in space-time and measure the essential energy flows. The trouble is that the one being that appears to be the most willing to enlighten us is also one of the most accomplished liars in existance!

- yeah - it's a truly persistant lie and may become a pain in the brain ... but it aint necessarily so.

What I wonder is.....why did Cameron specifically mention those three Aedra? Why not Mara, Akatosh, or Arkay?

It's unnecessary to name of all the Aedra just to prove a point.

A trial is a test, and the results of the test have yet to come up with anything that can withstand its own weight. Doubt for its own sake can be a virtue, but a destructive one if it reveals no greater truth.

And like all tests, to ask this question and examine the possibilities you must fatally oversimplify your thinking. You are talking about creation myths when the truth is not in the stories but the world in its entire. You know perfectly well that Mundus makes a mockery of your mortal senses. You can verify nothing. You can know no truth because Mundus contains no truth that is compatible with this form of excessive doubt.