Is the Concept of God Necessary To Explain Anything?

[rojse]

In my opinion God does not reveal Himself in order to explain stuff, it is to provide meaning, purpose and to put an ethical authority over us.

Having said that, I believe from an intellectual perspective, God does help to explain things (at least for me), such as the origin of the Universe, the creation of life, and the reason we have consciousness, freewill and a knowledge of good and evil.

Even should you wish to implement God as an explanation for the creation of life or the universe or so forth, you have not explained how God was able to create life, or create the universe. You have only added another layer of complexity above what we would have needed should we have stuck with a non-theologically based answer. If you implement God into any problem, you add questions as to how God started the processes, why he started them, when he started them, and so forth, which need to be answered as well as answering the question using the traditional scientific method of explanation.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

Even should you wish to implement God as an explanation for the creation of life or the universe or so forth, you have not explained how God was able to create life, or create the universe. You have only added another layer of complexity above what we would have needed should we have stuck with a non-theologically based answer. If you implement God into any problem, you add questions as to how God started the processes, why he started them, when he started them, and so forth, which need to be answered as well as answering the question using the traditional scientific method of explanation.

Why should we know how God did things? Science is a noble endeavor because it enables us to engineer things that improves our lives. But understanding how God does things serves no purpose.

 

[rojse]

Why should we know how God did things? Science is a noble endeavor because it enables us to engineer things that improves our lives. But understanding how God does things serves no purpose.

If I was a religious person, I would say that knowing how God does things allows us to understand him better.

As I am not religious, I would say that knowing how God does things allows us to do the same things he does.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Is the concept of god necessary to explain anything? If so, what? How is it necessary? If not, why not?

If you regard consciousness as intrinsic to the nature of reality, that aspect of the whole is God regardless of the formula you use to describe it. If instead you regard consciousness as an emergent (and therefore unnecessary) property of the bottom line--i.e., unconscious matter-energy--you’ve got a lot more explaining to do.

 

[rojse]

If you regard consciousness as intrinsic to the nature of reality, that aspect of the whole is God regardless of the formula you use to describe it. If instead you regard consciousness as an emergent (and therefore unnecessary) property of the bottom line--i.e., unconscious matter-energy--you’ve got a lot more explaining to do.

Can you please rephrase that more simply, so I can understand what you have said?

 

[Nick Soapdish]

If I was a religious person, I would say that knowing how God does things allows us to understand him better.

He reveals what we need to know about Him. He is infinite so it is not possible to know everything about Him.

As I am not religious, I would say that knowing how God does things allows us to do the same things he does.

How is that possible if God's actions are supernatural?

 

[rojse]

He reveals what we need to know about Him. He is infinite so it is not possible to know everything about Him.

Well, if we know what he has done before, and he has left us samples to study, and he knows that we are smart enough to examine them for evidence, has he not all but revealed what he wishes us to know, as he knows we have the resources and intelligence to study what he has left?

How is that possible if God's actions are supernatural?

To me, supernatural phenomena are merely phenomena that we cannot explain scientifically yet. It may exist, it may not, but eventually, when we have enough scientific evidence, we will be able to explain it, whether it is a hallucination, or scientific phenomena that we can study, and eventually replicate.

Once, thunder used to be considered supernatural, before we learnt that it is electrically charged particles jumping about. Now, we utilise electricity, and we can even make our own thunderbolts, should we wish.

If God exists, and he uses supernatural phenomena, we just need to study it scientifically and logically, make and test hypotheses, before we can mimic what is actually occuring.

If you have an alternative definition, please tell me what it is, so I can discuss.

 

[zenzero]

Friend Sunstone,
Buddha never talked about god and could get the message across then; why not now?
The concept is old and should be discarded in this age.
Love & rgds

 

[Searcher_of_truth]

God is not neccasery, and provided no answer, it is simply a clause invoked to end questioning.
take the donut example.
"what created the donut" well the baker of course... "fine then what created the baker" well in the end it was god "well then.... what created god" um well..... um he's god nothing created him... "why?" Why?!?! thats just how it is now shut up.

now take my point of veiw.
What created the donut? the baker
what created the baker? his ancesters
what created his ancesters? the universe
what created the universe? we dont know nor can we.
Oh I see. So something might have? Yes
But we don't know? thats right

why do i make this point... In the first example the answerer hides from the fact that there is something that is unknown and so hides behind a veil of god. The second person doesnt hide, he accepts his ignorance on matters unknowable.
Regardless of his existence he doesnt realy explain anything that cant be explained, the only example of which people beleive he is the only explanation is above and it is a false presumption.

ps we all know the donut created god.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

To me, supernatural phenomena are merely phenomena that we cannot explain scientifically yet.

What "supernatural phenomena"?

 

[Yerda]

He reveals what we need to know about Him. He is infinite so it is not possible to know everything about Him.

How did you come by this knowledge?

 

[Nick Soapdish]

How did you come by this knowledge?

This is the common understanding of today's protestant Christianity based on centuries of Biblical scholars' studies. It is all founded on faith in the Bible (which no doubt you don't consider valid knowledge).

 

[Nick Soapdish]

To me, supernatural phenomena are merely phenomena that we cannot explain scientifically yet. It may exist, it may not, but eventually, when we have enough scientific evidence, we will be able to explain it, whether it is a hallucination, or scientific phenomena that we can study, and eventually replicate.

Once, thunder used to be considered supernatural, before we learnt that it is electrically charged particles jumping about. Now, we utilise electricity, and we can even make our own thunderbolts, should we wish.

If God exists, and he uses supernatural phenomena, we just need to study it scientifically and logically, make and test hypotheses, before we can mimic what is actually occuring.

If you have an alternative definition, please tell me what it is, so I can discuss.

This is from dictionary.com:

Supernatural
1. of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.

 

[s2a]

Is the concept of god necessary to explain anything? If so, what? How is it necessary? If not, why not?

1) Nope.

2) "Why not"?

Atheists exist, and persist, as antagonists...of all claimed gods.

Any offended "god" could readily step and and squash such impiety.

Yet...atheists...exist...

Now explain why any conceptualized god is so impotent and persistently invisible to such abject defiance and denials?

3) Does reason demand any supernaturalistic explanations of the Oort cloud, or the Horsehead nebulae, or quasars? Do we NEED an existent "god" to "explain" the impact craters on our own moon? If so, then why/how do impact craters upon the moon present any evidences for belief in a "god"? Why does Earth "need" only ONE moon...while Saturn "needs" (requires?) dozens of moons?

Why would a god "create" a lifeform that exists in the deepest depths of our oceans that never surface nor serve as sustenance to a species that is molded in the "image of god"?

What purpose does a comet serve by passing the Earth by either thousands or billions of miles? What purpose is served when a cometary collision occurs? Are comets "steered" by gods, or not? What is the purpose of evidenced plate tectonics on Earth? If "things" are "created" to be "just so"...then why is everything subject to change?

The real question is...."how is a god concept ever relevant to any of these questions"?

 

[tomspug]

Is the concept of god necessary to explain anything? If so, what? How is it necessary? If not, why not?

Well, I think it's important to understand that it's human nature to believe in God or a god, or many gods. It's been that way for most of history. People experience things and don't have a way of comprehending them. A god concept helps them to make sense of everything that doesn't make sense. There's religion.

In that sense, God isn't necessary to explain anything as long as we have everything figured out, which is what science is trying to do. Basically, science is a struggle, a struggle to eliminate the need for God by removing the mystery from life. I guess the perception is that once we understand everything we will have control over it. Until then, God will never be 'removed' by man's efforts. He will always persist.

 

[Yerda]

This is the common understanding of today's protestant Christianity based on centuries of Biblical scholars' studies. It is all founded on faith in the Bible (which no doubt you don't consider valid knowledge).

I don't know what to make of knowledge founded on the Bible. If it works for you then great.

 

[emiliano]

Good post tomspug, I think that it all depend on what mysteries each of us individually want unswears for. Question such as, Does my life has a purpose? Why are humans endowed with intelligence? Or this one that was presented by s2a Why does Earth "need" only ONE moon...while Saturn "needs" (requires?) dozens of moons? The answer to this is known as intelligent design, the earth is perfectly designed to support all the life forms that that we see around us, some of this life form depend on sea tides , thus the need for a moon that is situated at an exact distance and position, and that it exert an effect on the water that we called tides. Saturn dozen moons? We don’t know, we don’t know what is in there, not to worry though because billions of dollars are spend in this endeavours. Why was man created in God’s image?
To Be fruitful, and multiply and fill the earth, and subdue it. And have dominion

 

[Aasimar]

Is the concept of god necessary to explain anything? If so, what? How is it necessary? If not, why not?

No, he isn't necessary.

A god is necessary however if you must live in a universe that is fair and just. Which ours doesn't appear to be. I think deep down some people just can't deal with things like their aunt just died and is gone, and Hitler got away with it. So it might be necessary for people to maintain their sanity, the concept anyway. Just speculation on my part.

 

[Wandered Off]

In that sense, God isn't necessary to explain anything as long as we have everything figured out, which is what science is trying to do.

The "we have everything figured out" bit fits more on religion than science. Science begins with the premise that we don't know (or else we wouldn't be trying to learn), while religion often claims to have answers from god that should be accepted merely because of their claimed source.

 

[tomspug]

The "we have everything figured out" bit fits more on religion than science. Science begins with the premise that we don't know (or else we wouldn't be trying to learn), while religion often claims to have answers from god that should be accepted merely because of their claimed source.

Ah, you are right that Science STARTS with the premise that we don't know anything, but the premise is indicative of science's ultimate goal, which is to explain everything. So, I guess you could put it that way that science has similar goals to religion. It just takes an analytical path.