Does God exist....

[Unveiled Artist]

THANK YOU someone gets it. Its not meamt to insult. Just an observation that we fall into one way or another.

It may seem that way, but it is no different than a description of love. On one hand we can say love is a coping technique. On another we can say that such a view fails to capture the whole sum. We are dealing with the concept of god, and not any actual entity here. We all live in our own subjective reality, and in that reality our mental schemes are usually designed to benefit our self. This does not mean there is not something akin to our concept of god that exists in an objective world. But, that the god that exists in many people's minds serves as a coping mechanism for them is hardly surprising. I don't think that one can say that if god exists as a coping mechanism for people that god can only exist as a coping mechanism.

 

[Curious George]

Actually, I dont associate children like this. The younger they are, the more in tone with their true self. I find seeing children that way an insult to them and their innocent growth to learn by trial and error.

The question is, withkut refering to God as a figmant of our imagination, do you feel that the mind creates God (real lack of better words) so that our minds have purpose, meaning, safety, protection?

1. A child (rational and innocent) is in a terrible environment. Psychologically, her mind goes into safety mode by disassociating herself from the experience shes immediately in. This is normal. It is also a affect comming from her mind.

2. A lady who hears voices is clinicly sane. She is mentally and physically healthy "and" she hears voices. She is not crazy--MRI picked it up. It is her reality not what we consider sound when comparing it to the majority population. The origin of the voices are from her mind.

3. A man just came from war. He develops PTSD. He relives in his head his war experiences. They are real for him and not for others. They originate from the mind.

Question, purely theological.

Could believers in deities (Ill say God) be manestifations of the mind to

1. For safety. We do not want to feel alone. We find it hard to trust humans. We need someone greater we can trust while we are in a dangerous world of crime and suffering.

2. Sometimes when we need safety, our minds devop personas that will mirror other people to protect our trauma induced mind from shock. As a result of number one, the mind hears voices (say from "God") to bounce back comfort and solace. Strictly safety messures of the mind. No one is crazy.

3. We just came from a trauma situation. We didnt know who else to call on while in immediate danger. If we heard about God already, we may call on Him put of instinct. We replay this need for help everytime we come into trouble. God becomes our savior.

Can a healthy person develop the entity of God for the three and more reasons above into their reality (as the woman in the MRI) but not be a fact because God came fro the mind not apsrt from it?

Would you trust a child to operate a car? Choose to drink alcohol? Are there no cons to teenage pregnancy? The list goes on. While it might play to your ego to say you do not see children this way (lying to yourself as a coping mechanism), there are plenty of studies which show children as more susceptible to manipulation, less capable of abstract reasoning, less developed cognitively,less capable of dealing with emotions, more easily emotionally overwhelmed, more self centered, less likely to have realistic expectations of self, etc etc. And even if you ignore the abundant psychological and medical body of evidence, you would have to be completely socially unaware to not realize others do view children this way.

But with regard to your question. Yes, people absolutely create a concept of god for their psychological benefit.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

To reduce 'God' to a coping technique strikes me as more than a little shallow.

And yet it seems a lot of people can't cope without such a belief.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

But with regard to your question. Yes, people absolutely create a concept of god for their psychological benefit

Thank you.

And to the former part. Im talking about a childs true self. It reminds me of inherited sin to brane a child irrational before he can learn how to talk. He is growing and that is normal. Irrational sounds like a politically correct word to mean someone who doesnt think straight---child and adult.

If adults are rational (which is different than my saying innocent and displays his true self) why do they need God as a coping technique?

 

[Curious George]

THANK YOU someone gets it. Its not meamt to insult. Just an observation that we fall into one way or another.

I absolutely understand that it is not an insult. Even your analogy, I assumed wasn't that insulting. However, you must be able to see why some would get defensive over this subject. It is unfortunate that you must tread on eggshells, but ego is highly defensive. Asking others to think critically about their concepts of self and god is hardly ever welcomed with an open mind. For this reason it is important that we communicate concepts in a palatable way. Otherwise, the discussion just turns into another one of the "nuh-uh!/yes-huh" threads. I really like your concept behind the op and believe it deserves critical reflection.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Maybe the question is not whether God exists, but whether we have a need to believe in God?

 

[Deidre]

Or we could just look at the nature and beauty around us. Why the need to add the idea of "God" and all the mental baggage associated with it?

True. For me though, I think it's simply that I *like* believing, if that makes sense. It may come from years of being taught that a deity exists since childhood, but all I know is, I wasn't 'happy' being an atheist.

 

[Curious George]

Thank you.

And to the former part. Im talking about a childs true self. It reminds me of inherited sin to brane a child irrational before he can learn how to talk. He is growing and that is normal. Irrational sounds like a politically correct word to mean someone who doesnt think straight---child and adult.

If adults are rational (which is different than my saying innocent and displays his true self) why do they need God as a coping technique?

More rational does not equal rational. That children are less knowledgeable for instance does not mean that adults are knowledgeable.

While I agree that irrational has a bad connotation, I do not see another word that works. Also we are talking in statistics when we talk about children. When we talk about a specific child it would not be rational to say that a specific child is less rational than a specific adult. We cannot apply general trends to individuals. There can exist many children more rational, cognitively developed, wise, etc than adults. But this does not disprove the general trend.

Now if you were to ask why people tend to cling to some irrational tendencies despite otherwise rational behavior. My answer is ego. Take an athlete's superstition for instance. An athlete might use a lucky item. Despite being a completely rational person in everything else, they demonstrate this irrationality. Why? I would suggest that it is a need to control and ego believing they can control. That we are not completely pragmatic and rational makes us interesting and fun. We have assorted chemical processes which feed us drugs based on these decisions. If everything was meticulously calculated I am not sure the ride of life would be as enjoyable.

 

[Curious George]

Maybe the question is not whether God exists, but whether we have a need to believe in God?

I think that is complicated. Certainly we have needs that are fulfilled by such a belief, but we, or at least some, do not need to believe. I would then like to extrapolate and say that we don't need to believe in god--we could fulfill these needs through other avenues. But I think that might be a stretch, because some may very well need to believe in god. Not that they couldn't survive otherwise, but that they would fail to thrive- so to speak. I would imagine however that some who do believe in god would find better success in fulfilling their psychological needs in another manner.

 

[Spockrates]

in the "minds" of believers? I would not say a figmant of someones imaginaton. Im leaning towards psychology.

For example, the mind may create another persona to protect itself from the direct trauma he experienced as a child.

Another would replay the same events as if they are still happening because of a post tramatic condition.

Children often find solace in stuff animalz and may in a medical point of view see it as the only way for their mind to disatach oneself from the negative environment around for safety reasons.

While these are facts in instances of medical trauma, why would it not be the same (the above coping techniques by the mind) for healthy human beings who still develop them out of the minds (rather than intentional) in the need to

1 protect oneself from danger. Say find solace in conversating with someone not human if the direct danger or problem are humans themselves (over generalizing)?

2 replay the same need for help for lifes problems even though the solution can exist inside oneself if they have the ability (not choice) to do so?

3. only in specific cases, disatach oneself from this world to only associate with the world they in their minds find solace in?

Also, although these three coping techniques are not dangerous or illogical, we could accept they come from the mind not heart

Carlita:

Interesting premise, but I don't think (1), (2) or (3) apply to me, at least not in this instance: Many years ago when I was in college I was engaged in an activity I liked and had no idea was wrong. OK, this might sound like I'm a nut job, but please bear with me. I then heard the words, "This is wrong." I heard them not with my ears, but in my thoughts. Although I was not thinking them.

Now, looking back I have wondered if I was insane, but dismissed the idea as improbable. For I'm now twice as old as I was then, and I never heard such a voice before or since. I mean, if this was some psychotic episode, why did it occur only then? If I was schizophrenic, wouldn't I hear voices, instead of one voice that only spoke to me once?

So for me, personally this was convincing evidence that either God exists, or someone communicated to me with telepathy--if such an ability is possible outside of science fiction. But what do you think, Carlita?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I then heard the words, "This is wrong." I heard them not with my ears, but in my thoughts. Although I was not thinking them.

It's not unusual to have an internal dialogue, and the mind can be subtle and complex. Possibly it was your conscience speaking.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

No, God is not some coping technique that only exists in the minds of believers. He is the Infinite One, the Creator. He doesn't need me, you or anyone or anything else to exist. But we sure do need Him to exist!

 

[Spockrates]

It's not unusual to have an internal dialogue, and the mind can be subtle and complex. Possibly it was your conscience speaking.

Spiny:

This was different. Unlike anything I experienced before or after. The thought was not my own. I think those who are insane might have such experiences, but from what I've heard, they occur more than once.

 

[Spockrates]

Spiny:

So let's consider the possibility that I had some psychotic break. I think such is improbable not only because it happened only once, but also because I was not under any great stress at the time. In fact, I was quite relaxed and enjoying myself, feeling no guilt, even. For I was oblivious to the idea that my actions were morally wrong. That is, I was until those three words intruded on my thoughts.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Carlita:

Interesting premise, but I don't think (1), (2) or (3) apply to me, at least not in this instance: Many years ago when I was in college I was engaged in an activity I liked and had no idea was wrong. OK, this might sound like I'm a nut job, but please bear with me. I then heard the words, "This is wrong." I heard them not with my ears, but in my thoughts. Although I was not thinking them.

Now, looking back I have wondered if I was insane, but dismissed the idea as improbable. For I'm now twice as old as I was then, and I never heard such a voice before or since. I mean, if this was some psychotic episode, why did it occur only then? If I was schizophrenic, wouldn't I hear voices, instead of one voice that only spoke to me once?

So for me, personally this was convincing evidence that either God exists, or someone communicated to me with telepathy--if such an ability is possible outside of science fiction. But what do you think, Carlita?

I've "heard" voices that were not me, as well. Some were very kind and loving and others...well, the opposite. I've had a lot of experiences with entities, shall we say. So I know what you mean.

 

[Curious George]

Spiny:

So let's consider the possibility that I had some psychotic break. I think such is improbable not only because it happened only once, but also because I was not under any great stress at the time. In fact, I was quite relaxed and enjoying myself, feeling no guilt, even. For I was oblivious to the idea that my actions were morally wrong. That is, I was until those three words intruded on my thoughts.

What were you doing?

 

[Spockrates]

What were you doing?

Why George, you ARE curious!

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Thank you. Yes. I can see what you mean. I tried to have a critic talk in a christian chat, ot offensive analogy, but it got them arroused. The moderator said since there are new christians present they didnt want them to doubt their faith; so, I held back.

Here, at least one has a choice to reply. But there ya go. Beating a dead horse?

I absolutely understand that it is not an insult. Even your analogy, I assumed wasn't that insulting. However, you must be able to see why some would get defensive over this subject. It is unfortunate that you must tread on eggshells, but ego is highly defensive. Asking others to think critically about their concepts of self and god is hardly ever welcomed with an open mind. For this reason it is important that we communicate concepts in a palatable way. Otherwise, the discussion just turns into another one of the "nuh-uh!/yes-huh" threads. I really like your concept behind the op and believe it deserves critical reflection.

 

[Curious George]

No, God is not some coping technique that only exists in the minds of believers. He is the Infinite One, the Creator. He doesn't need me, you or anyone or anything else to exist. But we sure do need Him to exist!

That is not what she said. She did not preclude god fro existing outside of humans, however what I believe we are talking about is the concept of god within humans. Your insistence for instance that God exists with these characteristics is based on faith. Why do you have faith that God exists with these characteristics. I think that if we peer into your psyche we will find that belief in a higher power that exists beyond and independent from humans actually benefits you. Now since this god does not benefit from your belief, we see the only entity to benefit is you. If we look at why you have formed this belief we are likely to find subjective reasoning. Your subjective experiences are colored by your ego. Is it that strange to wonder if your ego has tipped the balance to believe in something that is of benefit to you?

 

[Spockrates]

I've "heard" voices that were not me, as well. Some were very kind and loving and others...well, the opposite. I've had a lot of experiences with entities, shall we say. So I know what you mean.

Saint Frankenstein:

So I hope you aren't offended by my asking, but how do you know you are sane? Please understand, it's a philosophical question, not intended to be an insult.