God is all in your head?

[Dunemeister]

It should be noted just how speculative this theory is. Nobody here was there when humans became aware of God (whether it's all in the brain or an authentic experience of an actual God or something else). It would therefore be a mistake for religious skeptics to latch onto studies like this to justify their skeptical position; it would also be a mistake for religious believers to worry what "implications" this study might have. It's on an equal footing with the Christian story that humans became aware of God because they were created in the image of God.

 

[Copernicus]

I agree with Dunemeister's comments on the speculative nature of the claim, although I also agree with the conclusion that gods are inventions of the human mind. My own opinion is that there are other benefits to belief in gods besides their explanatory value. In fact, nowadays, belief in God doesn't explain very much at all about how the world works. A more important function might be that worship has a purpose--to empower the believer. If a god is powerful and favorably predisposed towards you, then you can use that relationship to improve your situation in life. Empowerment is far more useful than explanation.

 

[JerryG]

It seems to me that one possibility is that an image of God is produced in the mind of believers within the mothers womb. As the child grows God exists as a separate holy compartment within the believers mind.
During times of stress, some believers will hear voices which comes from the God within. Prophets are victims of self-deception. They hear voices coming from the God within and believe them to be true.

The net result is that the inner God will lie and deceive the believer. All of us like to believe that we can trust our own mind. It is sad to realize that our own mind can lie to us.

 

[S-word]

This concept is refuted by the fact that evolultion has no purpose or goal, indeed, human evolution has merely been a sideshow of evolution on earth, and certainly was not preordained.

S.J. Gould has written much on this subject, as is worth reading.

The evolution of any species can be predicable to a point, if one is privy to the conditions that the species in particular is going to experience in the future.

Had you read all my previous posts , you would be well aware that my belief is that each creation (In the first instance) represented the heights to which the mind of the creator had evolved to at that point in time.

Of course the creator of a space ship, which represented the heights to which the mind of its creator had evolved since the Creation of the first wheel, who, if he was abandoned on another different world would create a new ship, according to the design of the ship from the old world. And my dear friend in the context of eternity, this is not the first world in which mankind first evolved, nor is it the first world in which mankind was created occording to the design of the first one which had evolved. It took over 14 billion years on this world alone in which mankind was created according to the blue-print that was in existence. 14 billion years to create the conditions and infrastructure in which mankind could survive, after that it takes only nine months to produce other bodies in the image and likeness of the original blue-print.

 

[footprints]

I agree

In agreement, I cannot disagree.

Having eyes that can see, and having ears that can hear, I must disagree with your observations.

As is your prerogative.

Agreed

In agreement, I cannot disagree.

I am assuming that you do believe that the evolutionary process has not ceased with mankind the latest animal species that is Known to have evolved as a new species

I would agree that what has evolved once has a very high probability of evolving again. As to whether or not mankind is the last species to evolve, I would class that as speculation.

"If," being the opperative word. Although If one has received a visitation from their far distant descendant who has evolved from the body of mankind, "The Son of Man," then the "IF" is taken out of the equasion.

I would debate the flimsy evidence of mamals having evolved from reptiles, or reptile-like mamals, but not in this thread.

Certainly your prerogative to class the ascension of Jesus as evolution, and it is one way of looking at it. I personally lean more to the theory, that by ascending, one takes themselves out of the evolutionary cycle. And, why I align with the conclusion that God is of the mind, this is the process of any path of enlightenment, to get the mind right, to get the mind balanced in accordance to reality around you, the same scenario which Jesus left and that which the path of enlightenment he left to follow leads to. It all pertains to the mind.

Agreed! And until the basis of my belief is judged to be wrong by myself, it will remain the correct belief for me. Although my belief is in a constant state of evolution, you will never find me today where I was yesterday, nor will you find me tomorrow, where I am today, I am but the compilation of all the data that I have accumulated to this day.

And that is the way it should be, and that is the way it is supposed to be. It shows your intelligence and your ability to Freethink, to logically reason within your own brain.

Agreed, even mine.

LOL even yours. It aligns perfectly with some Hindu beliefs. Many believe our next evolution will be in spiritual form.

I totally agree with you, and when people refuse to afford to me that concideration and attack my belief, with insults and sacasm, they will receive it back twofold.

I thank you for concidered opinions and I agree that you are entitaled to believe as you wish.

Everybody should protect their own intelligence. In the fast changing pace of life, it is often the only tangible thing we have left to hold on to.

 

[footprints]

This concept is refuted by the fact that evolultion has no purpose or goal, indeed, human evolution has merely been a sideshow of evolution on earth, and certainly was not preordained.

S.J. Gould has written much on this subject, as is worth reading.

Everybody is entitled to their own speculation, even S.J.Gould.

 

[Tiapan]

Hi S-Word,

I need not convince you of anything, you have already convinced yourself.

Your belief has just as much chance of being correct as any other belief on the planet.

You assume equal probability for all possibilities, I would question that assumption. I think the real evidence tilts the scales significantly away from the super natural to the natural.

Cheers

 

[S-word]

In agreement, I cannot disagree.



As is your prerogative.



In agreement, I cannot disagree.



I would agree that what has evolved once has a very high probability of evolving again. As to whether or not mankind is the last species to evolve, I would class that as speculation.



Certainly your prerogative to class the ascension of Jesus as evolution, and it is one way of looking at it. I personally lean more to the theory, that by ascending, one takes themselves out of the evolutionary cycle. And, why I align with the conclusion that God is of the mind, this is the process of any path of enlightenment, to get the mind right, to get the mind balanced in accordance to reality around you, the same scenario which Jesus left and that which the path of enlightenment he left to follow leads to. It all pertains to the mind.



And that is the way it should be, and that is the way it is supposed to be. It shows your intelligence and your ability to Freethink, to logically reason within your own brain.



LOL even yours. It aligns perfectly with some Hindu beliefs. Many believe our next evolution will be in spiritual form.



Everybody should protect their own intelligence. In the fast changing pace of life, it is often the only tangible thing we have left to hold on to.

In agreement, I cannot disagree.

You mightn't, but I certainIy can. I can agree with certain aspects of anothers belief, and yet reject the rest of their belief as total unadulterated rubbish.

 

[R. Wayne]

At this late date, March 2010, I'm not sure this post is being visited much; but, your posting deserves a comment or two.
The "concept" of God is a function of the human brain; but, it is reasonable to believe that if there was no God, the concept would not be in the human brain: No God, No Creator, so how did I get here" People who would profer notions that we simply involved have their heads in the sand. Take the following exercise, for example: "Why is there something rather than nothing?"
If you will observe what surrounds you, you will note that there is "something" and "life" throughout our planet. The reality "something" exists now is sufficient evidence for one to conclude there has always been "something." This is so because if there had ever been a past instance of non-existence, that state of nothingness would have prevailed and there would be nothing today. However, "something" IS reality now ergo there never was such an moment of non-existence, nothingness. We know this is truth inasmuch as "something" cannot possibly derive from "nothing." Likewise, "life" is, as well, an eternal reality; there could never have been an instant of non-life or there would be no life today. We know this is truth inasmuch as "life" cannot possible proceed from non-life. And, as to Darwin"s "The Origin of Species," any scientist with good sense knows it is impossible for a qualitative lesser to evolve or become a qualitative greater!

 

[Dunemeister]

I agree with Dunemeister's comments on the speculative nature of the claim, although I also agree with the conclusion that gods are inventions of the human mind. My own opinion is that there are other benefits to belief in gods besides their explanatory value. In fact, nowadays, belief in God doesn't explain very much at all about how the world works. A more important function might be that worship has a purpose--to empower the believer. If a god is powerful and favorably predisposed towards you, then you can use that relationship to improve your situation in life. Empowerment is far more useful than explanation.

I'd actually say that god(s) were comparatively rarely invoked to explain anything at any time, even tens of thousands of years ago.

 

[Copernicus]

I'd actually say that god(s) were comparatively rarely invoked to explain anything at any time, even tens of thousands of years ago.

They are very common figures in creation myths. They used to explain a lot of things about how the world worked. For many people, they still answer a lot of questions, but their usefulness in that regard is much diminished by the rise of alternative natural explanations.

 

[S-word]

They are very common figures in creation myths. They used to explain a lot of things about how the world worked. For many people, they still answer a lot of questions, but their usefulness in that regard is much diminished by the rise of alternative natural explanations.

Sorry, I'm just being lazy here, I have copied this out of "My Documents," something that i wrote years ago, which belief has since evolved so far as to make that which is written here, seem to be juvinile. I'll leave it here for now, but I will go back and update it later on.

It was Eve whose expanded body was seen as the pre-flood body of mankind in whom her son ‘Enoch,’ the only exception of all mankind to have ascended to heaven and to have inherited the throne of his heavenly Father had developed, and Eve now lives in the body of her daughter the post-flood body of Mankind who inherited her matrilineal earthly throne. Her half brother ‘The Son Of Man’ born from the previous body of the new earthly Queen’s mother, has entered, into the body of his half sister, the body of post-flood mankind, in order to form his son and heir by gathering into a single enclosure, the spirits of good people who fall asleep in righteousness, of which spiritual enclosure the developing godhead of that multi-celled being, is the compilation of all those righteous spirits.



It is for this reason, that the greater number of religions throughout time have the Brother and Sister relationships as the foundation of their faith, which is not surprising, as we all have the one indwelling spiritual father who was the only one redeemed from the Old world that was destroyed by water, and was the only living spirit in the bodies of Noah, his wife, their three sons and their wives, for the kingdom og God is witin you. And it is he who dwells in the inner most sanctuary of his Tabernacle, which is the body of mankind who has descended from Noah, and he speaks through all men of all races and all creeds, and those who are not attempting to unite the body of man under the one belief, which is the compilation of all religons ans science, is in fact an agent of division.

According to the Japanese creation story, the first man Izanagi, and his sister Izanami circled a gigantic phallic image before copulating and founding the family line that led to the god – king Emperor of Japan. Then there is Zeus the godhead that developed in the sixth universal body born to Time and Space, or Kronos and Rhea, the previous five universal bodies having been swallowed by father Time before an intellect was able to develop in those bodies; and the heavenly Zeus mated with his sister Demeter, who Kronos, ‘Father Time’ was forced to bring up, and Demeter bore the god-child Dionysus, whose body was torn to pieces by the Titans then washed in water, before being roasted in fire (the baptisms of water, which was the flood of Noahs day, and the baptism of fire which the body of man has yet to go through.) Dionysus was to the early Greeks much the same as Jesus is to the Christians, the Greeks called Dionysus their Master; their indwelling ruler.

And what of Osiris, the most high god of the lower world who mated with his sister ‘Isis,’ the Queen and spiritual head of the human body of the upper world? Isis bore to her heavenly half brother Osiris, the god-child Horus=Harpocrates.

In the days of Jesus, the centre for the worship of the goddess ‘Isis’ was Rome, and today, the old Roman icons of the goddess Isis with her child Harpocrates on her lap, cannot be realiably distinguished from those of the earliest icons of the RCC’ heavenly goddess Mary and her god child Jesus: It is as though the old pagan Roman religion simply clothed itself with the new garment called Christianity.

Osiris was said to be beautiful of face, but like Krishna, he was of a dull black complexion.
Krishna the dark one, is the eighth manifestation of Vishnu the saviour, and is the heir to the throne of godhead; the one who at the close of this cycle of universal activity, will enter into Brahman the invisible singularity and divine reality of the universe, as the Supreme Personality of godhead. According to Hindu belief, Krishna like Jesus was supposedly born without the introduction of male semen into his mother bodies uterus. It is also written of Krishna, that immediately after his birth, his mother hid him in another country (Not Egypt) to protect him from the King (Not Herod) who saw the child as a threat to his throne and who had all the children slaughtered in that territory (Not Bethlehem) who were two years of age and below.

 

[Copernicus]

Sorry, I'm just being lazy here, I have copied this out of "My Documents," something that i wrote years ago, which belief has since evolved so far as to make that which is written here, seem to be juvinile. I'll leave it here for now, but I will go back and update it later on...

OK, but how is what you copied here relevant to my comment about the use of religion to explain things? To me, it just appears to be some random comments about past religious myths. What is the point that you are trying to make?

 

[footprints]

You assume equal probability for all possibilities, I would question that assumption. I think the real evidence tilts the scales significantly away from the super natural to the natural.

Cheers

Super natural is a very superficial term. You have your understanding of what this term means, I have my understanding of what this term means.

Not quite so, I really do not give any probability to absurdities, like flying teapots, spaghetti monsters et al, served only for the purpose of strawman arguments to divert away from the main issue at hand. Especially when these same absurd terms can be used as an accurate analogy to the majority of non-believers belief patterns. Not really an intelligent idea to moot them in the first place, reminds me of Pig Iron Bob.

Science provides a lot of evidence, unfortunately for the atheist or other non-believer, some of this evidence doesn't go in their favour.

 

[footprints]

In agreement, I cannot disagree.

You mightn't, but I certainIy can. I can agree with certain aspects of anothers belief, and yet reject the rest of their belief as total unadulterated rubbish.

That is your prerogative. What you do with your intelligence, is your choice as well.

 

[S-word]

OK, but how is what you copied here relevant to my comment about the use of religion to explain things? To me, it just appears to be some random comments about past religious myths. What is the point that you are trying to make?
[/font][/color]

Budge---Book of the dead, p. 627; “O Osiris, son of Nut (Primeval matter). I have given unto thee the Sovereignty of thy father Seb (Time), and the Godess Mut (Space), thy mother, (Making Osiris, Lord of Space-time) thy mother (Space) who gave birth to the gods, brought you forth as the first of five gods, and created thy beauties and fashioned thy members.

quote=Copernicus; OK, but how is what you copied here relevant to my comment about the use of religion to explain things?

quote=Copernicus; They used to explain a lot of things about how the world worked. For many people, they still answer a lot of questions,

I'm just pointing out, that those supposed myths, to me, still answer a lot of questions when compared with the concepts that have evolved from them.

 

[LittleNipper]

I don't know about you, but over this weekend we had a very bad Nor-Eastern with high winds and lots of rain. I had prayed that GOD would protect my garage (it is surrounded by very tall trees. Well, Saturday, one of the neighbor's trees, snapped in half. It was a big, tall, black locast tree --------- a real heavy wood... Anyway, it snapped off and just missed my garage. Where it landed, had the car been outside, it would have been crushed. Anyway, it landed in such a way, I was able to pull out and go to church Sunday morning with my family. When we got the home, the neighbor had to my surprise cleared away the entire tree...

 

[Copernicus]

I don't know about you, but over this weekend we had a very bad Nor-Eastern with high winds and lots of rain. I had prayed that GOD would protect my garage (it is surrounded by very tall trees. Well, Saturday, one of the neighbor's trees, snapped in half. It was a big, tall, black locast tree --------- a real heavy wood... Anyway, it snapped off and just missed my garage. Where it landed, had the car been outside, it would have been crushed. Anyway, it landed in such a way, I was able to pull out and go to church Sunday morning with my family. When we got the home, the neighbor had to my surprise cleared away the entire tree...

So do you see a connection between your prayer and the fact that the tree did not hit your garage? Would the creator of the universe have been motivated to act on your behalf because of your devotion to him? Is it your opinion that atheists are more likely to suffer storm damage because they do not pray for protection against storms? Do you believe that an atheist such as myself should attribute bad fortune to lack of faith and good fortune to nothing at all?

 

[LittleNipper]

So do you see a connection between your prayer and the fact that the tree did not hit your garage? Would the creator of the universe have been motivated to act on your behalf because of your devotion to him? Is it your opinion that atheists are more likely to suffer storm damage because they do not pray for protection against storms? Do you believe that an atheist such as myself should attribute bad fortune to lack of faith and good fortune to nothing at all?

I see the glass as half-full rather than nonexistent. I believe the CREATOR may do whatever HE pleases, but I do feel that HE will build faith and trust by awarding people the desires of their hearts when it suits the eternal betterment of individuals. And it does rain on the just and the unjust, but the unjust likely have no clue as to how their seeming "good fortune" might actually eventually benefit others in the broad scheme of things...

 

[Copernicus]

I see the glass as half-full rather than nonexistent. I believe the CREATOR may do whatever HE pleases, but I do feel that HE will build faith and trust by awarding people the desires of their hearts when it suits the eternal betterment of individuals. And it does rain on the just and the unjust, but the unjust likely have no clue as to how their seeming "good fortune" might actually eventually benefit others in the broad scheme of things...

You confirm my general contention that religion is more about empowerment than explanation. Religion must provide concrete benefits if it is to be of use to humans, even if those benefits are only imaginary. But it is interesting and somewhat troubling to me that you seem to have morphed my contrast between believers and non-believers into a contrast between the "just" and the "unjust". That kind of stigmatization is all to common in the religious community.