Hypothetical scenario for a world without religion

[charlie sc]

Oh really on previous literature iscience is a scaffolding completely dependent on previous texts..

No, not really. If science disappeared and anything relating to it, we'd be thrown back to the stone age. However, to say we won't get back to something similar to science is just false. Science continues to change, unlike some things, and in it's current form uses the hypothetico deductive model. Philosophically, now, science is akin to methodological naturalism. This was not always the case and has taken different shapes throughout history. Therefore, it's safe to assume, the more humans understand something the less we need unexplainable things to to explain phenomena.

In regards to " proof of God" you seem to be under the wierd idea your experts on the topic "religion" are experts. Based on what evidence do you have of that? A topic can both be true and completely not understood.

That's not what I said and was asking. If, say, Mark Twain disappeared from the history books, it's unlikely we'd see his works ever again because they're unique to him. Similarly, religions would have a similar problem. They're either observed one time events and/or fabrications. I'm asking for some way to find your deity today, or any, if religion disappeared.

 

[charlie sc]

We choose not to listen.

Interesting. Is this anecdotal evidence?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Without quantum mechanics (science), materials engineering (science), software engineering (science), control of electrical signals (science) both locally in your computer and wider, by the internet you would still be banging on drums to send messages
How do you think the semiconductor works?
How do you think the internet works?
We know how trees developed and grew, evolution
We know how mountains developed, plate tectonics
We know how canyons formed, erosion
And we know how life developed, abiogenesis

It is possible that God used some sort or form of ' evolution ' is creating lower forms of life, but according to Genesis that was Not so with human life.
God formed, God fashioned, Adam from the existing dust of the ground before breathing the ' breath of life ' into a life-less Adam before Adam became a living soul, a living person.

 

[charlie sc]

Religion is mankind's attempt to understand God.

That's one possible explanation for religion.

Isn't God more than the sum of mankind's religion?

This doesn't make sense. This is like saying god is religion. However, you just said religion is an attempt to understand god. Another way this doesn't make sense is that not all religions have a god.

Are you really dependent on others to discover what actually exists?

No, are you?

Discovery opens doors to new ideas and other directions to investigate. It's a journey. You might not know how to find God when you start your journey, however you might discover how along the way.

This seems more like preaching to me. Let me try
The more you learn, investigate and discover new ideas the greater your critical thinking skills will become. Once your critical thinking reaches a certain stage in your journey, you'll discover how fake religions are and subsequently start to see the abysmal truth of reality.

Oh jeez, I still got it.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

The Gods will contact us.

The God of the Bible has already contacted us through His Book aka Bible.
Just as it is written so it is:
The international proclaiming about God's kingdom of Daniel 2:44 is now done just as written at Matthew 24:14; Acts 1:8.
The 'powers that be ' will be saying, "Peace and Security..." just as written at 1 Thessalonians 5:2-3 as the precursor to the coming great tribulation of Revelation 7:14,9 before Jesus, as Prince of Peace, ushers in global Peace on Earth among persons of goodwill.

 

[charlie sc]

If you think God is like a human or demands you to do something then that makes sense. But what if God or even gods aren't like that?

If you read about "mysticism", you know that there are plenty of us who have experienced God across cultures.

Well, I was replying to what I thought his deity and world-view demanded.

So, your particular deity doesn't care?

 

[ChristineM]

It is possible that God used some sort or form of ' evolution ' is creating lower forms of life, but according to Genesis that was Not so with human life.
God formed, God fashioned, Adam from the existing dust of the ground before breathing the ' breath of life ' into a life-less Adam before Adam became a living soul, a living person.

It is possible that somewhere in a possible multiverse that your god possibly has a magic wand.

However, not in this universe. DNA rules out the Adam story. Humanity (in fact all life) evolved from lower life forms.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Paul's specific apperance is shown to be different in Acts. However, even then, Paul makes clear that he saw Jesus, not just heard Him, in 1 Corinthians 9:1 and 1 Corinthians 15:8. Furthermore, the author of Acts also writes in Luke 24:39 that when Jesus appeared risen, He said, "Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have." Paul writes in Philippians 3:20–21 that when Christ returns (i.e., to raise Christians from the dead, 1 Corinthians 15:22-23), He "will transform our lowly body that it may be conformed to His glorious body" (NKJV, emphasis added). Paul, then, taught resurrection as being where the mortal body is transformed to an immortal, "glorious body."

Thank you for your reply.
I find at Acts of the Apostles 22:6-9 that Paul saw a 'great light' around him speaking.
Those with Paul saw the flashing light, but only Paul understood Jesus' voice.
Continue reading at Acts of the Apostles 9:7-8 Paul (Saul) saw No man.
At Acts of the Apostles 26:13-14 what changed Paul was the voice.
So, the ' seeing Jesus ' at 1 Corinthians 9:1 could be in the sense of seeing Jesus as a real person.
It is the 'voice' that Paul replies to at Acts of the Apostles 9:4-5.
Thus, the ' last of all ' mentioned at 1 Corinthians 15:8 could be that the resurrected Jesus appeared to the others before lastly appearing to Paul but appearing to Paul with Jesus' voice.
Chapter 24 of Luke was before Paul enters into the picture and where Jesus uses a materialized body.

I find 1 Corinthians 15:1 is addressing Jesus' spiritual ' brothers '.
Those 'brothers' are the ones who have that first or earlier resurrection to heavenly life - Revelation 20:6; 5:9-10; 2:10.
The meek who will inherit (Not heaven) but inherit the Earth will have fleshly physical bodies.
To me that is why two (2) types of bodies are mentioned at 1 Corinthians 15:40.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

[QUOTE="ChristineM, post: 6049909, member: 6171.................. DNA rules out the Adam story. Humanity (in fact all life) evolved from lower life forms.[/QUOTE]
I wonder how DNA rules out Adam. Adam was formed from the existing earth - Genesis 2:7.

 

[charlie sc]

Well you see, it's somewhat cheating to elimate all the religious literature. I get what you're saying, but some religous literature serves as part of the evidence. For example, take 1 Corinthians 15:3-8. Even most skeptics of Christianity grant that this is a nutshell of the gospel that the original Christians believed. They also grant that the passage isn't guilty of embellishment and that the statement is sincere. Therefore, in the words of Germany’s leading resurrection skeptic, Gerd Lüdemann, “It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’s death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ” (What Really Happened to Jesus, pg. 80).

The question then becomes, "How could the witnesses see Jesus alive after He was crucified?" Most skeptics today, including Lüdemann, believe they merely hallucinated, but that contradicts the fact that people saw Jesus even in groups. Because hallucinations come from a person's mind, a group hallucination would itself be supernatural. If you hallucinate an apple in front of you, no one else will be able to see it. If anyone else does, the apple's really there!

Furthermore, even skeptics like the apostle Paul converted upon seeing Jesus risen. (Again, it's unchallenged even by secular scholarship that Paul was a persecutor-turned Christian who said his radical transformation was because he saw Jesus risen.) How could he hallucinate something happening that he "knew" (at least in his mind) to be false? A modern-day equivalent would be for the likes of Richard Dawkins to suddenly claim he saw Jesus, becoming a Christian.

The best explanation, though controversial for being religious, is that Jesus' claims are actually true. At least, I haven't heard any natural explanation that works without itself becoming supernatural.

Sorry, I completely missed your post. Not really about the OP but sure, let’s do this

Are you saying that someone rising from the dead means they’re god or god did it or whatever they said prior/after now becomes true?

 

[Audie]

When you actually find God, God will no longer be a Belief. Have you assumed God does not exist or do you search for the truth?

Disregard the sin, Satan and such. You are right. That is no more than stories. It is not reality.

That is an "if" not a "when". You just made up the
"when", something I do not much respect.

Nor do I have any respect for your try at framing
this, such that I've done either something
lamebrain, or will be emulating you.

Assuming of facts not in evidence is how you
arrive at belief in "god", so I suggest you direct
your questions at yourself.

 

[Audie]

[QUOTE="ChristineM, post: 6049909, member: 6171.................. DNA rules out the Adam story. Humanity (in fact all life) evolved from lower life forms.

I wonder how DNA rules out Adam. Adam was formed from the existing earth - Genesis 2:7.[/QUOTE]


We dont doubt that your beliefs and very limited
understanding is in harmony with the book you choose to believe in.

You wonder, but will you bother to try to understand it?

 

[Audie]

I find what Job did help his God.
Satan challenged Job, and along with his challenge Satan challenges all of us:
'Touch our flesh' ( loose physical health ) and none of us would serve God <- Job 2:4-5.
Job under adverse conditions proved Satan a liar
Jesus under adverse conditions proved Satan a liar
Thus, they vindicated or hallowed God's name clearing it of any reproach Satan cast upon God.
The change was in the end with faithful Job is as recorded in the 42nd chapter of Job.
The change was in the end as with faithful Jesus in that his God resurrected dead Jesus - Revelation 1:18.
Thus, the change for us is that Jesus' was given the God-given resurrection power and will resurrect the dead.
As for the change or blessing for those of us still alive on Earth at the soon coming ' time of separating ' to take place on Earth as per Matthew 25:31-33,37,40 is that living people can remain alive on Earth, and continue to live on Earth, becoming part of Jesus' coming 1,000-year governmental rule over Earth when it begins, and what is miserable ends.
Even miserable ' enemy death ' will be No more on Earth as per 1 Corinthians 15:26; Isaiah 25:8; Isaiah 35th chapter.

I wonder if you are aware that atheists such
as Christine and myself not only have read
your book but tend to know it better than lo
and many a nominal Christian? Copy pasting
verses does not impress, it make you look like
a robot. Just sayin'; I have to reason to want to
help you to be more successful.

 

[Quintessence]

I'm sorry, I still don't quite get it. Territories are abstract concepts. If you remove people, you wouldn't find territories. Similarly, maps represent how we mapped the landscape. However, if we remove all maps, the landscape stay the same. Are you saying these abstract concepts are real?

Anything we can know or experience in any way is real. Saying otherwise is bizarre to me, especially given the power so-called "unreal" things like ideas and concepts have.

I suppose if you believe for some reason that ideas and concepts aren't real somehow - and again, I really don't get that because it makes absolutely no sense to me - ideas from atheism to theism, gods to democracy, feminism to capitalism are all not real to you. But in all cases, I would wager the stuff these labels refer to are indisputably real to you. Just because you don't recognize the sun with a label like "god" doesn't mean the sun is somehow human-made or non-existent. That's silly. Of course, I think suggesting concepts and ideas being not real is silly as well, but... ontology is a matter of taste. I never ask the question "is this real." If I can even ask the question, the answer is already yes. The question is always "in what way do I experience and know this?"

 

[Etritonakin]

Imagine for a moment, a hypothetical scenario where everyone's memory of every religion disappeared and all the literature vanished.

How would one find or demonstrate a certain deity exists?

The reason I ask this is because science does not need previous literature to observe a phenomenon, hypothesise, verify, experiment and then create theories. It seems like scientific theories do not need previous literature the same way religion does and there's no way to replicate scripture.

Biblical scripture contains experiences -so God revealing himself to people similarly would be one way. Such experiences are at the will of God rather than something men can cause or demonstrate, so people could only record their own experiences.

However, if the universe required a creator, it could be reverse-engineered to reveal such without personal interaction with the creator.

However, human religion has soured many to the idea to the point that it is not often seriously considered by "science".

Proving ideas about God or a certain idea about how things were created is usually the focus -not whether creativity was required at any point.

We find a complex device in the water and know it was created -but a much more complex and purposeful single atom we doubt?

 

[LuisDantas]

Imagine for a moment, a hypothetical scenario where everyone's memory of every religion disappeared and all the literature vanished.

How would one find or demonstrate a certain deity exists?

The concept is neurologically ingrained enough that it would have been recreated in a number of forms shortly after.

Quite possibly closer to what is currently called a spirit by the average mainstream understanding, mind you. Historically, animism seems to have preceded theism proper.

Hopefully it would take longer that time around for people to want to indulge in silly expectations of "evidencing the existence" of such constructs.

The reason I ask this is because science does not need previous literature to observe a phenomenon, hypothesise, verify, experiment and then create theories. It seems like scientific theories do not need previous literature the same way religion does and there's no way to replicate scripture.

Well, religion is not really comparable to science. And deities are of only marginal interest to religion, and literally irrelevant and of no interest whatsoever to science.

 

[charlie sc]

Anything we can know or experience in any way is real. Saying otherwise is bizarre to me, especially given the power so-called "unreal" things like ideas and concepts have.

I think the word real is a bit ambiguous, so I'd have to describe what I mean by it. Undoubtedly, dreams are real to the individual dreaming them. Equally, people who have schizophrenia will witness hallucinations, including vocal and chaotic thoughts. No doubt, I'm sure this is real to them. To me, my thoughts are real. However, other people cannot verify these things outside of their mind or my mind. A fairly good explanation is that these things are in their mind and are not occurring elsewhere, unless you'd like to dispute that?
Therefore, when I say real, I mean things we can measure and/or observe in reality, preferably that's corroborated with other individuals. If you say the Tooth Fairly is real, I'd be concerned. However, if you meant it's real in your mind, then that's not what I mean and we're talking past each other.

I would wager the stuff these labels refer to are indisputably real to you.

A label, or symbol, for something in reality is real in our minds. We can also express this through all sorts of mediums. However, is the symbol or label,the actual thing itself or does it represent it? For instance, as far as I know from pagan gods, they are anthropomorphic representations for natural things(E.G. nature) or whatnot, with desires, stories, personalities, and so on.
It seems like you're saying the label or symbol is a real thing and apart from the thing it represents?

Remember, I'm just trying to understand what you believe.

 

[Quintessence]

Therefore, when I say real, I mean things we can measure and/or observe in reality, preferably that's corroborated with other individuals. If you say the Tooth Fairly is real, I'd be concerned. However, if you meant it's real in your mind, then that's not what I mean and we're talking past each other.

What's interesting is that mythical creatures like the tooth fairy can be corroborated though mutual cultural narratives or shared personal experiences, so I'm still not entirely clear on your standard. I suppose it doesn't really matter in the end of the day. The important thing to bear in mind is that religious traditions that are grounded in practice and experience don't avoid the hard work of discernment. Going "meh, not real" is a way of avoiding that hard work, especially when done as categorically as most people in our culture do.

A label, or symbol, for something in reality is real in our minds. We can also express this through all sorts of mediums. However, is the symbol or label,the actual thing itself or does it represent it? For instance, as far as I know from pagan gods, they are anthropomorphic representations for natural things(E.G. nature) or whatnot, with desires, stories, personalities, and so on.
It seems like you're saying the label or symbol is a real thing and apart from the thing it represents?

Before I attempt to get into this, I think it's important to bear in mind the purpose of literary devices like anthropomorphism. Storytelling is an art, and literary devices are part of that art. They are more or less used to help engage the listener, whether that means helping them understand and relate to the story or capturing their attention in an engaging fashion. Telling people about the gods in a literal fashion is incredibly boring and dry. It's dry like reading the methods section of your typical research paper. So things like allusions, anthropomorphisms, diction, and so on are used when telling stories.

The question to ask then, is what is the relationship between literary devices (the map) and the subjects we are talking about with them (territory). On that, your mileage may vary, but at the very least there's a relationship there and they are interconnected. Talk to a storyteller and they will often remark on how their narratives (maps) take on a life of their own, seemingly independent from the source (territory). But on the other hand, the narratives are intended to illuminate and communicate the nature of that source and can be said to be the same thing. Yet is a description of a thing ever the thing? Can humans really convey the true essence of anything? Really know something?

It gets into some pretty deep philosophical questions. Some folks like to settle on a "The Answer" to such things, but I'm more of a paradigm shifter. I'll use the answer that best suits what I'm doing at the time. Sometimes, I might treat the literary devices and such as their own independent thing, other times not. In any case, it is all the result of a non-omniscient, non-omnipresent biological organism trying to make sense of the world and basically making it up as it goes along. I find it prudent to be flexible on how I view reality, knowledge, and all that in light of such things.

As an aside, anthropomorphism is something I explicitly avoid. I understand why it is used as a literary device and why it is popular, but I feel that constantly packaging the gods into human terms misunderstands their nature (especially when we have the sciences, which study the gods without such trappings). That's not to say I never use it, but I'm not a fan of it and do not anthropomorphize the gods that are specific to my tradition.

 

[charlie sc]

And deities are of only marginal interest to religion

I don't know... Would you say that Christians or Muslims are only marginally interested in God?

 

[LuisDantas]

I don't know... Would you say that Christians or Muslims are only marginally interested in God?

I don't consider Christianity and Islaam good examples of religion, mainly because they are so tainted by monotheism extrapolated entirely outside of its proper scope.

That said, it is a plain fact that for that very reason most Christians and Muslims are indeed much less interested in God than their very presumed beliefs would dictate.

Christianity and Islaam saddle themselves with this odd need to define themselves as a function of their own deities, to everyone's loss. But that can't change the basic fact that a religion is composed of human actions and understandings, regardless of any specific theological elements that it might carry.

In practice, any actual beliefs in the existence of some take on the god of either the Bible or the Qur'an is definitely secondary to peer pressure and family expectations, far as alignment with Christianity or Islaam go. That is not something that those groups feel confortable about, but a reality all the same.