Are God Concepts Incoherent?

[Eyes to See]

I'm curious what research you're referencing. Babies and small children don't have the cognitive ability to believe in things like gods; that capacity develops with time just as their other cognitive abilities do. This is even acknowledged from within the Christian tradition.

Hi again. I'm sorry it took so long to get back. I logged in and someone reminded me about not looking for a link to the study so I did a google search. I do remember correctly. Here is the first link that came up:

Children are born believers in God, academic claims

In part it states:

"Dr Justin Barrett, a senior researcher at the University of Oxford's Centre for Anthropology and Mind, claims that young people have a predisposition to believe in a supreme being because they assume that everything in the world was created with a purpose.

He says that young children have faith even when they have not been taught about it by family or at school, and argues that even those raised alone on a desert island would come to believe in God.

"The preponderance of scientific evidence for the past 10 years or so has shown that a lot more seems to be built into the natural development of children's minds than we once thought, including a predisposition to see the natural world as designed and purposeful and that some kind of intelligent being is behind that purpose," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

"If we threw a handful on an island and they raised themselves I think they would believe in God."

 

[blü 2]

That the world is fair in regards to knowledge.

Only brains have knowledge, though it's possible that machine brains will be or are already capable of it.

It is right here for the cosmological principle and that is just one version of it. Ultimately you rely on the world to be fair and that in a non-physical property of a physical world.

To be consistent, says the principle. Seems to work. Should evidence be found that the principle is unsound, science will then deal with it. So what?

You rely on that the world is fair and thus you can claim natural, material, physical and what not.

No, I accept that it seems that way and we've proceeded on that basis so far, ans so far so good; but nowhere is it said that it MUST be that way.

the world is fair, is supernatural. Supernatural as - of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe. That the world is fair as far as knowledge goes, is not within the visible observable universe.

No, it's as I said above ─ simply, so far so good.

Your version is dishonest, because it requires something of the world that it apparently is not, namely fair.

I say for the third time, nothing of what I think or what science thinks insists that the world is fair. The cosmological principle is a statement of what seems to be the case. ALL conclusions of science are tentative, NONE is absolute.

 

[Curious George]

Several cultures have worshipped the sun as their god. Others have worshipped the earth. The sun and the earth exist, and they are indeed gods to some people.

I am aware.

If I have a child, but you are not my child, I am still a father even if I am not your father.

You are also a son, shall I refer to you as "son" even though you are not my son?

Is a priest necessarily a father, even if he has sired no children, merely because he is called father by his parishioners?

If someone asked whether you believe multiple gods exist and you said yes only to later disclose that you believe multiple god exist because you acknowledge the existence of multiple entities that are/were worshipped by other people, then i would accuse you of equivocation.

The problem here is that we have a term god which certainly denotes worship, yet needn't always denote worship. Namely, would Zeus still be considered a god, even if he had no worshippers? Does lack of worshippers remove one's status as a god?

The sun exists, but is not a god. Someone worshipping the Sun may make make it a god to them, but not to me. I can recognize the Zeus as a god, butthat doesn't mean i believe he existed/exists.

For these reasons, object of worship, fails to encapsulate the word god.

You're free to disagree with my definition, though; I just think it would make things a lot easier if we defined terms based on the way they're actually used.

And it still can be used in that manner. For, to my knowledge, these cultures that regarded the sun as a god believed the Sun to fit within my definition of a god. They were just wrong.

How do you define the term "god"?

Post 50

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
I say for the third time, nothing of what I think or what science thinks insists that the world is fair. The cosmological principle is a statement of what seems to be the case. ALL conclusions of science are tentative, NONE is absolute.

Are you honest? Do you admit that all you have as you is how it seems to you? So come clean, either it is in effect a subjective belief system and nothing else or do you really have knowledge of the world as independent of you and not just as it seems to you?

Regards
Mikkel

 

[Curious George]

Then describe what real thing we're looking for when we look in reality for God, such that we can distinguish God from all other natural things.

Because that description is, as far as I can tell, entirely lacking.

Yeah, i am not sure how you feel it is lacking. We are looking precisely for what the definition calls.

 

[blü 2]

Are you honest? Do you admit that all you have as you is how it seems to you? So come clean, either it is in effect a subjective belief system and nothing else or do you really have knowledge of the world as independent of you and not just as it seems to you?

You simply aren't paying attention to what I've already told you.

I've spelt out how science approaches these questions ─ NOT in the absolute manner you attribute to them.

I've spelt out my assumptions and pointed out they're your assumptions too. I haven't suggested they're anything but assumptions that work very well.

I've proceeded on the basis of those assumptions. On that basis, yes, I believe it's very likely that I have knowledge of the world that exists external to me. Is that an absolute claim? Read again what I wrote above and work it out for yourself.

You on the other hand have given no account of your supernatural, given no description of it, how it can be identified, how it can be distinguished from the imaginary, what aspects of reality can be attributed to it, why it's needs to be postulated at all.

 

[blü 2]

Yeah, i am not sure how you feel it is lacking. We are looking precisely for what the definition calls.\

Describe the appearance of the real being that has these traits and how it differs in appearance from other real beings. Just like it was a real being, say a variety of feline or insect or as may be,

I want to be able to look for this real thing in reality.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You simply aren't paying attention to what I've already told you.

I've spelt out how science approaches these questions ─ NOT in the absolute manner you attribute to them.

I've spelt out my assumptions and pointed out they're your assumptions too. I haven't suggested they're anything but assumptions that work very well.

I've proceeded on the basis of those assumptions. On that basis, yes, I believe it's very likely that I have knowledge of the world that exists external to me. Is that an absolute claim? Read again what I wrote above and work it out for yourself.

You on the other hand have given no account of your supernatural, given no description of it, how it can be identified, how it can be distinguished from the imaginary, what aspects of reality can be attributed to it, why it's needs to be postulated at all.

Okay, glad that your belief system works for you. Now stop judging how other humans do it as them based on your subjective belief system.

I honestly don't care that you don't get that there is no fundamental difference between a belief in a material world and a non-material world. They are both belief systems, which can work.

So here is my supernatural belief - the world as independent of my mind/experience is not any different than it appears to me, that is the fair part. But I am honest about that, because I don't know it. I can assign no likelihood of it or haven't any other way of knowing it.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[ecco]

Because entities are created things and therefore cannot be the originator of entities of which they themselves are. What you allude to goes back to the classic "Gnostic-Problem" - between "The One vs The Demiurge".
An entity will always be an angel, a djinn, an archon, an aeon - but not The Absolute/the ultimate/the creator/the ground of reality. Plus the idea of God being "omnipotent and omnipresent" itself should make this blatantly obvious to your mind.

What is blatantly obvious to my mind is that you do not get to make up definitions to suit your whims.
What should be blatantly obvious to your mind is that you do not get to make up definitions to suit your whims.

en·ti·ty
/ˈen(t)ədē/

noun
a thing with distinct and independent existence.
"Church and empire were fused in a single entity"


existence; being.
"entity and nonentity"
Definition of entity


1a: BEING, EXISTENCEespecially : independent, separate, or self-contained existence
b: the existence of a thing as contrasted with its attributes
2: something that has separate and distinct existence and objective or conceptual reality​

 

[ecco]

What if an omniscient, immortal entity with 1001 eyes and green and yellow skin and halitosis created this universe? No one knows of this God, no one worships Him. Therefore, by your definition, this real God is not a God.

No, by my definition the creator of the universe is no one's god.

In the same post, you said a something that even one person worships is a god. Then you state that the creator of the universe is no one's god. There are many people who are deists. Therefore there are many people who worship the creator of the universe. You seem very confused.

 

[ecco]

This is both the dumbest and most mean-spirited thing I've read in my short time here. Congratulations.

You have a habit of jumping into the middle of other people's conversations, not understanding the context and making irrelevant asinine comments.

Do you do that in real life, say at parties? It reeks of desperation - "Hey, someone please notice me."

 

[Curious George]

Describe the appearance of the real being that has these traits and how it differs in appearance from other real beings. Just like it was a real being, say a variety of feline or insect or as may be,

I want to be able to look for this real thing in reality.

If the appearance mattered it would be in the definition.

 

[robocop (actually)]

Things happen to me and to the world arising from my decisions, but I haven't run across God out there, or anyone who can point [him] out in the crowd.

But see, this makes you like God, evidence that there is a God.

 

[ecco]

Hi again. I'm sorry it took so long to get back. I logged in and someone reminded me about not looking for a link to the study so I did a google search. I do remember correctly. Here is the first link that came up:

Children are born believers in God, academic claims

In part it states:


"Dr Justin Barrett, a senior researcher at the University of Oxford's Centre for Anthropology and Mind, claims that young people have a predisposition to believe in a supreme being because they assume that everything in the world was created with a purpose.

He says that young children have faith even when they have not been taught about it by family or at school, and argues that even those raised alone on a desert island would come to believe in God.

"The preponderance of scientific evidence for the past 10 years or so has shown that a lot more seems to be built into the natural development of children's minds than we once thought, including a predisposition to see the natural world as designed and purposeful and that some kind of intelligent being is behind that purpose," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

"If we threw a handful on an island and they raised themselves I think they would believe in God."

I was the one who asked for the link. What you have provided to support your view is a claim by an academic. It says so, right there in the wording of your link. A claim by an academic is worthless.

Let's examine some of his comments:

[he] claims that young people have a predisposition to believe in a supreme being because they assume that everything in the world was created with a purpose.
​

First off, if I think back to my childhood I don't believe that I ever wondered or assumed that everything was created with a purpose. That's far too philosophical for an eight-year-old. Religious indoctrination begins long before a child is capable of concluding that everything was created with a purpose.

Second, your academic provides nothing to support his own argument. It's nothing more than his own opinion.

Another:

He says that young children have faith even when they have not been taught about it by family or at school.
​

More unsubstantiated opinion.

Again:

The preponderance of scientific evidence ...​

What scientific evidence?


Lastly:

"If we threw a handful on an island and they raised themselves I think they would believe in God."
​

If he was being honest and had written that with academic precision, he would have said: "I think they would believe in one or more gods".

That I could agree with. Not because a notion to believe in God or god or gods is ingrained in our brain. Rather because humans are curious. At some point, someone would have asked: "Where did we come from?" or "What happens to us when we die?"
If you were the oldest child and the presumptive leader, how would you have answered?

Now let's consider the mindset of the author of your opinion piece...

AC Grayling: Children of God?Children of God?
AC Grayling
There's no real evidence to suggest that religion is hardwired – it's just wishful thinking on the part of religious academics


Fri 28 Nov 2008 06.30 ESTFirst published on Fri 28 Nov 2008 06.30 EST

Earlier this week I had occasion to debate – if the soundbite culture of radio news permits that description – with a member of Oxford University's Centre for Anthropology and Mind the "findings" of its cognition, religion and theology project, to the effect that children are hardwired to believe in a "supreme being". The research is funded by the Templeton Foundation, an organisation keen to find, or to insert, religion into science and to promote belief in their compatibility – which, note, comes down to spending money on "showing" in the end that the beliefs of ancient goatherds are as good as modern physics.
​

"beliefs of ancient goatherds". I couldn't have put it better myself.

 

[blü 2]

Okay, glad that your belief system works for you. Now stop judging how other humans do it as them based on your subjective belief system.

It remains the case that you have no coherent concept of what a real god could be.

Which is what this thread is about.

 

[blü 2]

If the appearance mattered it would be in the definition.

The appearance matters because without it you can't tell whether the potato is God or not. For all you know, God looks like a potato.

Or a piece of gravel. Or a crow. Or a shrimp. Or a 1957 Ford Customline. Or a pair of nylon underpants. You don't know what a real god is, which is the point of this thread.

 

[blü 2]

But see, this makes you like God, evidence that there is a God.

What real thing do you intend to denote when you say God? Describe [him] so I can identify [him] if I find [him].

Or does [he] have only imaginary qualities?

 

[robocop (actually)]

What real thing do you intend to denote when you say God? Describe [him] so I can identify [him] if I find [him].

Or does [he] have only imaginary qualities?

I would say if you obey the commandments you will come to know Him.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It remains the case that you have no coherent concept of what a real god could be.

Which is what this thread is about.

Since I don't believe in coherent nor real like you do, I don't find that a problem.

So that doesn't stop me from in fact as a part of material world to be religious. Now do I have a wrong belief? Maybe, but I have been doing this for 25+ years and I have figured out that I don't have to worry about my wrong beliefs about what reality really is. I am still here. So these debates are in practice always a game about different subjective beliefs and yes, I might be wrong in a non-moral sense, but I am still here.

That is in practice the everyday falsification of that reality is material. You don't have to believe in that and you can still have a life.
For all practical purposes I could believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster and still have a life.
I think you put much value on reasoning been a valid tool. I find it much more important to learn to have a good enough life. You can't do that only with reason, logic and evidence.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[PureX]

"Unreal beliefs have real consequences". That is true of all unreal beliefs. As long as they work subjectively and can lead to further behavior, it doesn't matter how "unreal" they are.

Regards
Mikkel

There are no "unreal beliefs". All beliefs are real. They really exist. However, many beliefs are inaccurate. And that inaccuracy may inhibit actualization.