Let's Present Some Evidence ...

[Vile Atheist]

It's not that difficult with most things. As most things will have some sort of natural proposed environment that can be searched. Not finding the things being searched for in their supposed natural environment is not proof that they don't exist, but it clearly is evidence that they don't exist.

We've been all through this earlier in this thread, I think.

Not at all. Take the example of lizards in a desert. In a given area of desert there are 5 lizards. You walk through the area and you don't spot any (you either didn't encounter them, didn't notice them, they camouflaged, they avoided you, etc.). You conclude there is evidence there aren't any lizards in the area of desert.

Is that reasonable? No. It's not reasonable for the reasons I pointed out. There could be several reasons why you didn't run into any lizards. And until you have ruled those out, you have nothing to stand on.

If you said "I took a satellite photo of the given area of desert and that showed up no lizards in the area", THAT is evidence that there are no lizards in the desert. It's not proof, but it's evidence because you are ruling out alternative explanations. You've ruled out that you just didn't encounter them/they avoided you, and you've also ruled out that you just didn't notice them.

It's not proof until you rule out the camouflage as well (provided those are the only reasonable explanations we can think of why we wouldn't be able to spot the 5 lizards). Once you've eliminated all possible ways a lizard could obscure itself from human detection, you can conclude there are no lizards in the desert.

Obviously we aren't talking about lizards in a desert, but God. And things are slightly different for God because we cannot search for God in a finite area. However, if your version of God intervenes at all in the natural world (including its creation) we would be able to find evidence for that. If we cannot find evidence for that, that doesn't mean that God DOESN'T exist. It is possible for theists to provide evidence for God, depending on how they define it. But they haven't presented it, or they have and it has not stood up to much scrutiny. Absense of evidence is not evidence of absense. And I think my lizard example demonstrates why pretty decently.

But it makes you wonder. For millenia, men have believed in some higher power. And millenia later, we have threads called "Let's Present Some Evidence".

 

[Commoner]

The following sentence was a conclusion presented in my post #1337: “[FONT=&quot]It is not an interpretation for it is part of the instance at the outset.”[/FONT][FONT=&quot] That is the very conditional conclusion you premise in your post above but that prior post must not have been very convincing so let me offer some additional thoughts. My position all along has been not to weigh interpretation too heavily because the paradigm shift in one’s being and in perspective is inherent in the ‘instance.’ Unfortunately, search for words and concepts to explain the ‘Instance’ has not been totally successful. Because of the nondual aspect, it may not be possible to put into words. If you or anyone is interested in more exacting explanation someone like Ken Wilber seems so much more adept at it than most of us. Anyway, as always please consider any use of words, concepts, symbols, metaphors, similes, etc. to be pointers but not the reality itself.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
I get that, I really do - it's not an interpretation. Let me make an analogy: the mystic experience is like getting your leg chopped off (without the unpleasant side effects or loss of function...) - you can't really ignore it, and it's obvious that your leg has been chopped off, right? But what you're doing is concluding that all the instances of people having their leg chopped off are caused by the same thing by examining only those instances for which people have given similar explanations. Instead of looking for people that have had their legs chopped off (had a certain experience), you're looking for people who explained the experience in a similar way - that's where interpretation comes in.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Perhaps we can use two types of experiences that have been studied by science to point to the nature of realizations that can have the 'Result' inherent in the experience; although they differ from the 'Mystic Realization.'

The 'Eureka moment' in science is sometimes called the Aha! experience and in common language might be thought of as 'when the answer to a problem seems to pop out of thin air.' Coined first by Archimedes, it might be considered a 'flash of insight' that gives immediate knowledge of a discovery or solution to a problem. It feels 'very different in nature than when an answer gradually dawns.' [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
Yes, I agree - that's one of the ways we solve problems. We are simply not consciously aware of the gradual procedure that takes place subconsciously. But it's basically just "trial and error" on a subconscious level.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]'Intuition' has been said to be a knowing, a sensing that is beyond the conscious. It, too, has been described as a knowing that appears as flashes of insight or a keen and quick insight. One dictionary defines intuition as 'direct perception of truth, fact, etc., independent of any reasoning process; immediate apprehension.' Tuition has been said to be the apparent ability to acquire knowledge without inference or the use of reason. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]Again, intuition is the same thing. We are not consciously analysing the issue at hand, we just "know it" when we need to use it. I don't understand what relevance this has - intuition is just as aquired as any other type of knowledge and just as unreliable as any other interpretation. You could say intuition is a sort of a learned reflex - a way of quicly (practically immediately) assesing and responding to a situation. But to confuse intuition with some "greater knowledge" is incorrect. It is "instant knowledge" (or rather and instant interpretation of a situation by applying pre-learned knowledge to that specific situation), demonstrably flawed in many ways.

[FONT=&quot]From one view it seems that the Eureka moment and direct tuition although differing from the subject experience are akin to the Mystic Experience in that there is no interpretation involved; the experience is the realization is the result; and the occurrence is not totally within the individual’s control.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
There is no conscious interpretation, but they are both essentially interpretaions nevertheless.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]This is perhaps to me one of the most interesting statements that you have made, Commoner. From one viewpoint it would be nice if attributes of the ‘Realization’ were the same as those of common human experiences and therefore, that the Realization hopefully would be a more common happening. However, available information and even the limited portion presented in this thread point towards a fairly rare occurrence that is extraordinarily different from the common. It is always possible, (and now knowing you it is likely ), that my understanding of your comment is shallower than your intention but it seems that even the attributes in common with the Eureka moment and with the direct intuition set it apart from most common human experiences. Or do you call the Eureka moment and direct intuition common? [/FONT]

Yes, I would call intuition and the "eureka moment" common. It is the effect of these that might seem extraordinary, but there's certainly nothing "special" or "inexplicable" about these types of experiences. By "common" I simply meant "having no special distinction or quality".

[FONT=&quot]The Mystic Experience, however, is the realization of a paradigm shift in one’s view of reality to a nondual one and new sense-of-self. (As noted previously though, the conventional view is not lost nor distorted.) Some consider that God is the best term/concept to apply to the One that is realized although others prefer different terms (mentioned before) such as the Ground of Being, Consciousness-itself, or the TrueSelf. [/FONT]

The question is, is the new view of reality any closer to it than my view? And should "god", a concept meant ot convey perfection to some, the grand daddy of design to others, really be used to describe this new view (or the source of it)?

 

[autonomous1one1]

.....Well, not that I want to get into another debate over this, but I really don't think Jesus is a good example as we have no way of knowing if he was actually a historical figure - he certainly wasn't what Christianity claims him to be. If nothing else, I feel confident that you'll agree that at least certain parts of the story must have been embellished. But anyway...

Ok, Commoner. Thanks for the discourse. Let's move on to other threads - shall we? You may have the last word.

(Except, let it be noted that from my perspective it doesn't matter whether there was a historical Jesus or not. The words were written by someone and the book of Thomas came from some where. Besides, there is Buddha, Mohammad, Krishna, authors of the Upanishads and Bhagavad-Gita, the Chinese Book of Changes, Lao-Tse, and many more.)

Best wishes,
a..1 :angel2:

 

[Commoner]

Ok, Commoner. Thanks for the discourse. Let's move on to other threads - shall we? You may have the last word.

You are free to "move" where you please, if you do not want to discuss the subject any further, that's ok.

(Except, let it be noted that from my perspective it doesn't matter whether there was a historical Jesus or not. The words were written by someone and the book of Thomas came from some where. Besides, there is Buddha, Mohammad, Krishna, authors of the Upanishads and Bhagavad-Gita, the Chinese Book of Changes, Lao-Tse, and many more.)

That's my view as well, it doesn't really matter if there was a historical Jesus, unless you want to use Jesus as an example of a historical figure.

 

[PureX]

Not at all. Take the example of lizards in a desert. In a given area of desert there are 5 lizards. You walk through the area and you don't spot any (you either didn't encounter them, didn't notice them, they camouflaged, they avoided you, etc.). You conclude there is evidence there aren't any lizards in the area of desert.

Is that reasonable?

Yes, it is reasonable. You seem not to be understanding the difference between evidence and proof. Evidence can mislead us, and still be evidence. Evidence can be misunderstood, misperceived, it can be tainted, and it can be flawed. But unless and until it's shown to be so, it's still evidence.

It's not reasonable for the reasons I pointed out. There could be several reasons why you didn't run into any lizards. And until you have ruled those out, you have nothing to stand on.

Anything is possible. That's why evidence is not proof. Evidence is just information that helps us establish the probability of proof. But it does stand for itself until it's shown to be wrong.

For example: let's say we search the part of the desert where a specific lizard is proposed to exist ten times, and we find none. So we search it twenty more times, and still we find none. Each search stands as evidence that the lizard does not exist in that area. And each search accumulates as further evidence in support of that conclusion. Now, the lizards may still be there. But the likelihood of that being so is diminished, logically, by each search.

Obviously we aren't talking about lizards in a desert, but God. And things are slightly different for God because we cannot search for God in a finite area. However, if your version of God intervenes at all in the natural world (including its creation) we would be able to find evidence for that. If we cannot find evidence for that, that doesn't mean that God DOESN'T exist. It is possible for theists to provide evidence for God, depending on how they define it. But they haven't presented it, or they have and it has not stood up to much scrutiny. Absense of evidence is not evidence of absense. And I think my lizard example demonstrates why pretty decently.

In the case of "God", you are right in that we can't define the search parameters sufficiently to make a search. And we can't define the object of the search clearly enough to be sure we've found it or not found it. So the search is not possible.

However, I think this is entirely the wrong way to approach this particular question. For us, "God" is and remains an idea. If God exists as some substance, it's clearly ALL substance. If God exists as a physical phenomena, it's going to be ALL physical phenomena, in which case we will not be able to recognize "God" from "not God" (as it's all one or the other). So I think we need to abandon the search for a physical "God" and deal with the "God we have ... the ideal God.

That God leaves us with some evidence. That God leaves us with something to discuss and debate, and to accept or reject.

But it makes you wonder. For millenia, men have believed in some higher power. And millenia later, we have threads called "Let's Present Some Evidence".

Yes, as an idea, "God" is very powerful.

 

[Vile Atheist]

Yes, it is reasonable. You seem not to be understanding the difference between evidence and proof. Evidence can mislead us, and still be evidence. Evidence can be misunderstood, misperceived, it can be tainted, and it can be flawed. But unless and until it's shown to be so, it's still evidence.

No, I understand it quite well. Which is why I made that distinction of what is proof and what is evidence for the desert analogy. Like you say, "anything is possible", which I partly agree with. I agree there are a lot of possibilities, but that they are finite. And as we start ruling them out, one by one, we accumulate evidence until we run out of possibilities to discount and then we zero in on one possibility. We now have proof because we can show that all other possibilities are not the case.

For example: let's say we search the part of the desert where a specific lizard is proposed to exist ten times, and we find none. So we search it twenty more times, and still we find none. Each search stands as evidence that the lizard does not exist in that area. And each search accumulates as further evidence in support of that conclusion. Now, the lizards may still be there. But the likelihood of that being so is diminished, logically, by each search.

And you're discounting the possibility of systematic error. What if this is a special kind of lizard that buries itself in the sand to avoid detection? You could walk through the area a million times and chances are you won't spot it. Before you can use the fact that you combed the area over and over again as evidence, you need to establish what kind of lizard it is first, what its habits are, and determine that it does not, in fact, do that. Only then have you eliminated the possibility of it hiding. And only then is it evidence.

Evidence is the elimination of a possibility. Proof is the elimination of all other possibilities.

In the case of "God", you are right in that we can't define the search parameters sufficiently to make a search. And we can't define the object of the search clearly enough to be sure we've found it or not found it. So the search is not possible.

However, I think this is entirely the wrong way to approach this particular question. For us, "God" is and remains an idea. If God exists as some substance, it's clearly ALL substance. If God exists as a physical phenomena, it's going to be ALL physical phenomena, in which case we will not be able to recognize "God" from "not God" (as it's all one or the other). So I think we need to abandon the search for a physical "God" and deal with the "God we have ... the ideal God.

That God leaves us with some evidence. That God leaves us with something to discuss and debate, and to accept or reject

My apologies if I misunderstood this - and perhaps you could clarify if need be, but what I'm getting from the above is that you don't accept a physical God but the "idea" of a God?

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that, but if you mean that God is entirely conceptual to you, I don't quite understand the purpose of having an idea like that. If God is just a concept, what value does it have? How does it benefit in any way?

Yes, as an idea, "God" is very powerful.

Though I agree, that's not what I was getting at. My point was more that people have believed in "God" in some form or another for thousands of years and yet, we're still looking for evidence of such a phenomenon to this day....

 

[PureX]

I think we pretty much agree on what is evidence, then. Your explanation was clear and welcome.

My apologies if I misunderstood this - and perhaps you could clarify if need be, but what I'm getting from the above is that you don't accept a physical God but the "idea" of a God?

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by that, but if you mean that God is entirely conceptual to you, I don't quite understand the purpose of having an idea like that. If God is just a concept, what value does it have? How does it benefit in any way?

A physical chair, without the concept of a chair, is unrecognizable as such to us. It would be just pieces of wood joined together according to a logic that we wouldn't understand, and for a purpose that we couldn't see. All "things" are like this. Preceding the recognized physicality of a thing, is the idea of it, or ideal of it. The ancient Greeks used the word "logos" for this idealized conceptualization. Without cognition of the ideal, we can't recognize the physical expression of that ideal. The chair is still there, but no one "hears" it (tree in the forrest analogy).

But the physical expression of some ideals is not so material, as in wood or stone or metal and the ideal of a table or chair. Some ideals are expressed through our experience of circumstances, like the ideals of love, or art, or justice. And these can only be experienced personally and directly. This is how it is with the ideal of "God". The ideal of God can't be expressed through a particular arrangement of matter, as can a chair or a table or an automobile. The idea of God is expressed, and experienced, through specific kinds of circumstances. And as we each define "God" a little differently, we each also then experience "God" a little differently.

And if we define "God" as not existing, then we will close ourselves off to the experience of "God", as we will have already defined those kinds of experiences as something else.

In the end, the recognition of "God" becomes our choice. And it's experience is achieved by faith, and desire. But so is a chair, really. And so is a table. They're just a lot simpler, and more abstract ideals, that can be rendered and recognized physically.

Though I agree, that's not what I was getting at. My point was more that people have believed in "God" in some form or another for thousands of years and yet, we're still looking for evidence of such a phenomenon to this day....

Yes. It is the nature of the "God" ideal, that it requires faith and desire to experience it. And not everyone can easily muster up this kind of faith and desire.

 

[Copernicus]

But the physical expression of some ideals is not so material, as in wood or stone or metal and the ideal of a table or chair.

There are properties of the concept "chair" that go beyond physical structure, e.g. that one interacts with it by "sitting" on one of its surfaces and that one can lean one's back against another of its surfaces. An intelligent being that did not have a body that could "sit" would have a hard time imagining an "ideal" chair in our sense, but it would have other so called "affordances" with the object that would form part of its understanding.

Some ideals are expressed through our experience of circumstances, like the ideals of love, or art, or justice. And these can only be experienced personally and directly...

But we can only develop an ideal of a chair through direct experiences, as well. It is just that a primary meaning component of "love", "art", and "justice" are emotional states that we associate with behavior or with human-created objects. The only emotional state we associate with chair is the feeling of comfort that we often get when we sit in them.

This is how it is with the ideal of "God". The ideal of God can't be expressed through a particular arrangement of matter, as can a chair or a table or an automobile...

But love, art, and justice do not belong to the category of "person", as does God. In that respect, God is a little like a chair. We formulate an ideal concept of a "person" through our physical encounters with other persons. God is different only in the sense that we do not physically encounter him. However, God still has other very concrete characteristics that make the concept into a "concrete" noun. That is, God has thoughts and attitudes. We can communicate with God in a human language. God can cause physical events to take place and manifest himself physically. Love, art, and justice are abstractions of human scenarios. They are not anything like a person.

The idea of God is expressed, and experienced, through specific kinds of circumstances. And as we each define "God" a little differently, we each also then experience "God" a little differently.

Well, all of us have different "ideals" for all our concepts, because all of them are ultimately grounded in different experiences. We understand the world by analogy with experiences of the world. It is possible to imagine persons that do not exist. The same is true of gods, which are essentially persons. So it is perfectly legitimate to ask whether the person we think of as "God" really exists or is purely imaginary.

And if we define "God" as not existing, then we will close ourselves off to the experience of "God", as we will have already defined those kinds of experiences as something else.

Atheists do not define "God" as not existing. That is the kind of thinking you get in Anselmian scholasticism. "God" is defined as a person with special attributes. A person with those attributes may or may not exist.

In the end, the recognition of "God" becomes our choice. And it's experience is achieved by faith, and desire. But so is a chair, really. And so is a table. They're just a lot simpler, and more abstract ideals, that can be rendered and recognized physically.

But God can be rendered physically, as well. Most believers think that Jesus was a physical manifestation of God. Jesus, of course, was a person. Whether or not Jesus actually existed is another question. The same is true of the person that we call "God".

Yes. It is the nature of the "God" ideal, that it requires faith and desire to experience it. And not everyone can easily muster up this kind of faith and desire.

That is why believers in gods like to talk about miracles. Miracles are physical events caused by the usually undetectable God. For most people, God is not just an abstraction, but a person. Every time you pray to God, you are treating him as a real person. Believers often try to claim that God is more like an emotion than an actual physical being, but their "personal relationship" with, and behavior towards, God suggests an inconsistency of thought in that respect.

 

[PureX]

But love, art, and justice do not belong to the category of "person", as does God. In that respect, God is a little like a chair. We formulate an ideal concept of a "person" through our physical encounters with other persons. God is different only in the sense that we do not physically encounter him. However, God still has other very concrete characteristics that make the concept into a "concrete" noun. That is, God has thoughts and attitudes. We can communicate with God in a human language. God can cause physical events to take place and manifest himself physically. Love, art, and justice are abstractions of human scenarios. They are not anything like a person.

In my mind, this sort of "God", the anthropomorphic one that you describe here, is an intellectual invention. I do not really believe these attributes apply to God. But I may apply them anyway, on occasion, for the sake of ease or necessity on my part.

Well, all of us have different "ideals" for all our concepts, because all of them are ultimately grounded in different experiences. We understand the world by analogy with experiences of the world. It is possible to imagine persons that do not exist. The same is true of gods, which are essentially persons. So it is perfectly legitimate to ask whether the person we think of as "God" really exists or is purely imaginary.

Yes. I very much agree. I believe that people sometimes loose their grip on reality because they allow themselves to fall under the spell of their own imaginary God-image. Sometimes these simple and human-like God images are very appealing, and seductive, and we can easily choose to forget that they are of our own imaginations. And that the 'reality of God' is far more ideological then it is imaginary.

Atheists do not define "God" as not existing. That is the kind of thinking you get in Anselmian scholasticism. "God" is defined as a person with special attributes. A person with those attributes may or may not exist.

But God can be rendered physically, as well. Most believers think that Jesus was a physical manifestation of God. Jesus, of course, was a person. Whether or not Jesus actually existed is another question. The same is true of the person that we call "God".

A lot of atheists insist on defining God only irrationally and anthropomorphically so that they can then easily dismiss the whole idea of God. It's a classic straw man argument that completely misses the reality of theism. This is further exacerbated by various religious institutions themselves promoting these childish over-simplifications of the God ideal as a means of controlling children and retarding adults, for the sake of exploitation.

God is not a person. God doesn't have a personality. Almost no religions make this sort of anthropomorphic claim for their God. However, most religions use anthropomorphic icons and stories to help people to grasp the complex ideology that "God" represents. And the icons can sometimes easily become confused with the divine ideals they're intended to represent.

Jesus is not the physical manifestation of God. He was often accused of this, and was often asked directly about it, and in all cases (according to the story) he denied it. Jesus became the "Christ", which is the human manifestation of God's SPIRIT on Earth. Christ is not God Himself. Put simply, Jesus as Christ became the human expression of God's love and forgiveness for the rest of us. And this expression is carried out through the actions and events of the story of his life and death and resurrection. Jesus is the human exemplification of God's love and forgiveness for us. And we are then challenged to live as He lived (as Christs) to in turn become expressions of God's love and forgiveness to ourselves and each other. And we're promised that if we will do this, we will be spiritually healed and saved from ourselves and Heaven and Earth will become one and the same place. All of which is quite true logically, and is self evident to anyone who tries it.

That is why believers in gods like to talk about miracles. Miracles are physical events caused by the usually undetectable God. For most people, God is not just an abstraction, but a person. Every time you pray to God, you are treating him as a real person. Believers often try to claim that God is more like an emotion than an actual physical being, but their "personal relationship" with, and behavior towards, God suggests an inconsistency of thought in that respect.

You are focussing on one small and and often dysfunctional aspect of theism, here, while completely ignoring the true power and reality of the ideal of God.

 

[Vile Atheist]

A lot of atheists insist on defining God only irrationally and anthropomorphically so that they can then easily dismiss the whole idea of God. It's a classic straw man argument that completely misses the reality of theism. This is further exacerbated by various religious institutions themselves promoting these childish over-simplifications of the God ideal as a means of controlling children and retarding adults, for the sake of exploitation.

A lot of theists actually refuse to define their god in a specific way. And if they want to have a discussion on that topic without defining their god, we have to define it for them. And we do that based on what we commonly hear about God. We assign commonly-heard attributes to this God and come up with a generic one and then show how those attributes cannot be possible, etc.

When someone tells you "Prove my God doesn't exist"...you don't know how they define God so you are forced to ask them and in all likelihood they keep moving the goalposts. Or you can use a generic god and go from there. Many atheists choose the latter because it's less frustrating.

But anyways, to the meat and potatoes of what you're saying...

We conceptualize things based on manifestations of them in the natural world. When we conceptualize without there being any manifestation of it in the natural world, it is based on other manifestations we see. This is why the concept of God a lot of people have is anthropomorphic. They can't "visualize" what a God looks like. So, God is like a person. We give it attributes like a person. As Commoner points out, God is basically just a really powerful person.

Unicorns are basically just magical horses. Leprachauns are basically just drunken Irish midgets. Even though leprachauns and unicorns don't actually exist, they are based on our concepts of horses and drunken Irish midgets, which is based on the manifestation of horses and drunken Irish midgets.

This is why I think many people's versions of God aren't real. They "pray to" God (communicate to God as they would a person), they "love" God (showing human emotion to an entity on the assumption that the entity can understand and relate to human emotion), etc, etc. I've even encountered a theist right here on RF who claimed that though his God is omnipotent, it is subject to getting its feelings hurt. As in, his God shows actual human emotions.

Look at many people's versions of "spirits". Basically invisible people that interact with us much in the same way as we do one another (unless you're a fan of horror flicks). God is apparently human-like. And your average theist might say "Well God made us in His image". If you accept evolution, before humans existed, whose image were we? Whose image were we when we didn't have the capacity for complex emotion, thought, and society? Whose image were we when we weren't capable of such vast communication?

It seems clear to me that God is a product of the human mind and not reality. Your version of God is not human-based (which is a step up). But you still haven't addressed what meaning a concept of God that isn't really based on anything that manifests itself in the physical would have.

I'd be curious to see what predictions about the universe you make from your model of God and to define it specifically as best you can.

 

[Copernicus]

In my mind, this sort of "God", the anthropomorphic one that you describe here, is an intellectual invention. I do not really believe these attributes apply to God.

Purex, what is NOT an "intellectual invention"? Gods have existed as long as humans have recorded history, and they have always been anthropomorphic to some degree. I understand your desire to distance yourself from anthropomorphism, but the further away you get, the further away you get from what everyone else means by the word "God".

But I may apply them anyway, on occasion, for the sake of ease or necessity on my part.

I think that this is a noteworthy admission on your part. Why would anthropomorphism be an "ease or necessity" for you if you did not really "believe these attributes apply to God"?

A lot of atheists insist on defining God only irrationally and anthropomorphically so that they can then easily dismiss the whole idea of God. It's a classic straw man argument that completely misses the reality of theism. This is further exacerbated by various religious institutions themselves promoting these childish over-simplifications of the God ideal as a means of controlling children and retarding adults, for the sake of exploitation.

Yet you sometimes find anthropomorphism an "ease or necessity". The reality is that gods are treated as idealized "persons" by everyone and even--admittedly--by yourself on occasion. Atheists do not dismiss gods purely because they are anthropomorphic, although I agree with the implication that anthropomorphism makes gods ultimately less believable beings. Gods were not invented just to control children and "retard adults". That is too simplistic an explanation of them. They are ubiquitous in human societies because they fulfill many different needs in people.

God is not a person. God doesn't have a personality. Almost no religions make this sort of anthropomorphic claim for their God. However, most religions use anthropomorphic icons and stories to help people to grasp the complex ideology that "God" represents. And the icons can sometimes easily become confused with the divine ideals they're intended to represent.

Oh, come now. Your claim that "almost no religions make this sort of anthropomorphic claim" is patently absurd. Huge numbers of people take religious scripture very seriously and quite literally. Even if religious stories started out as parables and tall tales, subsequent generations of worshipers came to accept them as literal truth. There are plenty of Christians, Muslims, and Jews around today who embrace blatant anthropomorphism in their version of God. Just because you try to downplay it, that doesn't mean that you speak for a majority of believers. And even you admit that you cannot totally divorce yourself from anthropomorphism.

Jesus is not the physical manifestation of God. He was often accused of this, and was often asked directly about it, and in all cases (according to the story) he denied it. Jesus became the "Christ", which is the human manifestation of God's SPIRIT on Earth...

Well, "Christ" meant literally "annointed one". As an alleged Jewish Messiah, he had a legacy and a specific leadership role to play, although the standard Messiah was not actually supposed to get executed by civil authorities. He was supposed to conquer the enemies of God and restore Jewish hegemony.

Christ is not God Himself. Put simply, Jesus as Christ became the human expression of God's love and forgiveness for the rest of us. And this expression is carried out through the actions and events of the story of his life and death and resurrection. Jesus is the human exemplification of God's love and forgiveness for us. And we are then challenged to live as He lived (as Christs) to in turn become expressions of God's love and forgiveness to ourselves and each other. And we're promised that if we will do this, we will be spiritually healed and saved from ourselves and Heaven and Earth will become one and the same place. All of which is quite true logically, and is self evident to anyone who tries it.

The Trinity is an established doctrine that the vast majority of Christians believe in, even if you have some different meaning that you want to assign to the Jesus story. I'm not telling you that your version is wrong or invalid, just that you exaggerate the popularity of your point of view among Christians, most of whom believe that he was literally a divine being--God's manifestation on Earth. I appreciate your attempt to spin this in a certain way, but most of us have been around Christians and other theists long enough to know that this is your spin, not the common opinion of theists in general.

You are focussing on one small and and often dysfunctional aspect of theism, here, while completely ignoring the true power and reality of the ideal of God.

I may be ignoring, misunderstanding, or missing the true facts, but anthropomorphism is hardly a "small and often dysfunctional aspect of theism". Quite the opposite. It has been a foundational aspect of theism from the beginning, and it continues to dominate the perspective of most theists in the world today. I'm not saying that all theists believe in a cartoonishly anthropomorphic Old Testament Yahweh any longer, but your claims about how we should construe God are far from the mainstream of theistic belief.

 

[PureX]

Purex, what is NOT an "intellectual invention"? Gods have existed as long as humans have recorded history, and they have always been anthropomorphic to some degree. I understand your desire to distance yourself from anthropomorphism, but the further away you get, the further away you get from what everyone else means by the word "God".

That simply isn't true. I find that the further into religious study you go, the more intelligent the people you meet, and the less anthropomorphic their ideal of God becomes.

I think that this is a noteworthy admission on your part. Why would anthropomorphism be an "ease or necessity" for you if you did not really "believe these attributes apply to God"

Because it is an easy idea to grasp, mentally. And in times of great stress, this ease becomes important. It's the equivalent of the 'foxhole prayer'.

Yet you sometimes find anthropomorphism an "ease or necessity". The reality is that gods are treated as idealized "persons" by everyone and even--admittedly--by yourself on occasion. Atheists do not dismiss gods purely because they are anthropomorphic, although I agree with the implication that anthropomorphism makes gods ultimately less believable beings. Gods were not invented just to control children and "retard adults". That is too simplistic an explanation of them. They are ubiquitous in human societies because they fulfill many different needs in people.

Yes, they can. Lonely people can find a friend by imagining that "God" is human-like. People with unresolved parental issues can sometimes work them out through a god-image that is human (parental) like. People who have not been taught to self-discipline can sometimes learn this by imaging God to be their personal disciplinarian. There are any number of good and useful ways we can use an anthropomorphic image of God. But speaking for myself, I have found this sort of God-image mostly only useful in terms of expedience. Yet perhaps some of the above mentioned factor play a role in that.

Oh, come now. Your claim that "almost no religions make this sort of anthropomorphic claim" is patently absurd. Huge numbers of people take religious scripture very seriously and quite literally. Even if religious stories started out as parables and tall tales, subsequent generations of worshipers came to accept them as literal truth. There are plenty of Christians, Muslims, and Jews around today who embrace blatant anthropomorphism in their version of God. Just because evers. And even you admit that you cannot totally divorce yourself from anthropomorphism.

Neither one of us speak for anyone else's idea of God. All I can tell you is that my experience of re-entering the church as an adult showed me that many of the people there held a far more sophisticated and complex ideal of God than the simple human-like image that I'd been taught as a child, and many atheists seem to insist that most theists believe in.

Well, "Christ" meant literally "annointed one".

Yes, annointed with God's spirit of love and forgiveness.

As an alleged Jewish Messiah, he had a legacy and a specific leadership role to play, although the standard Messiah was not actually supposed to get executed by civil authorities. He was supyou try to downplay it, that doesn't mean that you speak for a majority of beliposed to conquer the enemies of God and restore Jewish hegemony.

The Trinity is an established doctrine that the vast majority of Christians believe in, even if you have some different meaning that you want to assign to the Jesus story. I'm not telling you that your version is wrong or invalid, just that you exaggerate the popularity of your point of view among Christians, most of whom believe that he was literally a divine being--God's manifestation on Earth. I appreciate your attempt to spin this in a certain way, but most of us have been around Christians and other theists long enough to know that this is your spin, not the common opinion of theists in general.

I may be ignoring, misunderstanding, or missing the true facts, but anthropomorphism is hardly a "small and often dysfunctional aspect of theism". Quite the opposite. It has been a foundational aspect of theism from the beginning, and it continues to dominate the perspective of most theists in the world today. I'm not saying that all theists believe in a cartoonishly anthropomorphic Old Testament Yahweh any longer, but your claims about how we should construe God are far from the mainstream of theistic belief.

Things change, and people grow. There are good an positive ways of using an anthropomorphic god-image and there are ways in which such an image is debilitating. And there are other ways of conceptualizing God all together. I have had the impression for a long time that what most people who call themselves atheists are objecting to isn't God or religion, but a specific kind of magical thinking that for some reason clearly annoys them. That's just my impression.

 

[Vile Atheist]

Things change, and people grow. There are good an positive ways of using an anthropomorphic god-image and there are ways in which such an image is debilitating. And there are other ways of conceptualizing God all together. I have had the impression for a long time that what most people who call themselves atheists are objecting to isn't God or religion, but a specific kind of magical thinking that for some reason clearly annoys them. That's just my impression.

Obviously, I cannot speak for other atheists, but I would think a good number share my reasons for rejecting religious belief. It's fairly clear that religion and God are man-made. Not only that, the moral and ethical implications of God are not what some theists make it out to be. Especially in reference to the Abrahamic God, it is portrayed as the epitome of morality and yet, it isn't if you really examine the Bible. Things that SEEM moral, really aren't. How is "Thou shall keep the Sabbath day holy" a moral commandment? In fact, I would argue it is amoral (neither moral or immoral). Depending on my mood, I would argue that it is a malicious IMMORAL act. Why? Assuming an omnimax God, God would know everything and God would surely know the consequences for people who choose to disobey this commandment. I think there is a story in the Bible about someone being stoned to death for gathering sticks on the Sabbath. And for what end?

Most people's God model demands worship. Why would an infinitely powerful being give a rat's tail about us puny, impotent humans? In fact, isn't demanding worship and threatening hellfire for non-compliance rather egotistical?

As we move further from the Abrahamic God, we get to more appealing concepts of god(s). I personally like Hinduism. But just because I like it, does not mean it is true. And just because I don't like the Abrahamic God, does not mean it is not true. But fact of the matter is, there are gaping holes in the Abrahamic God model that people consistently try to fill with BS when challenged on it. And that's partly where there are so many versions of it.

Whether or not we like or dislike this god or that, there is still not a scrap of evidence. The only way we know things in this world is through naturalistic evidence. If there is none, why believe in a God? Especially in this day and age where science has progressed so far that we can begin answering questions like where we came from. Especially when our society has progressed to the point that we no longer need religion to be moral or to find comfort. We no longer need it to explain anything. So that's the perceived annoyance some atheists have. Religion is man-made, God probably is too. We don't need religion, and we don't need God.

And if you want to argue that some people need religion and God, I'd counter-argue that those people aren't atheists or have never been atheists so they don't know their limits. I used to be a devout Christian and thought I needed God 100%. How wrong I was.

I am always amazed when a theist claims "I have evidence for my God" and it turns out to be a rejection of atheism, evolution, or some string of irrelevant Bible or Quranic quotes as if that's supposed to be evidence...

You started this thread with the aim of presenting evidence. You have somewhat described your model of God. We now know it isn't anthropomorphic.

If you're willing, I'd like you to:

1) Describe your God in detail.
2) Make predictions of what the universe would be like should your God exist.
3) Point out where this has been satisfied.

Then we can have a meaningful discussion of why you believe what you believe.

 

[PureX]

I can understand your disillusionment with Christianity, religion, and theism. I was raised Catholic and am no longer. I belong to no religious organizations mostly because they either won't accept my 'morphed' idea of God or because I don't feel comfortable with theirs. And I don't find the anthropomorphic image of God credible, either (though I will admit to it's being somewhat useful on some occasions).

On the other hand, I believe you're throwing out the baby, the bathroom, the house, the garage, and the family car, with the proverbial dirty bathwater. The ideal of God is far more than what it appears to me that you have been taught, and have experienced. And there are literally millions of people walking this Earth who have been deeply, and most positively transformed by it.

My own being has been literally saved from death and restored to health in no small part by the ideal of a benevolent "higher power". And I have personally witnessed the same happen in the lives of many other people. So for me this is not a belief I come by purely through intellectual argument or reason. And it's an idea that I would not give up purely for those reasons, either. For me, the idea of "God" is an idea that works in my life, positively and consistently. And this is powerful evidence in support of the accuracy of the idea. The fact that this experiential evidence does not translate to people who don't really want it to doesn't concern me in the least.

If you're willing, I'd like you to:

1) Describe your God in detail.
2) Make predictions of what the universe would be like should your God exist.
3) Point out where this has been satisfied.

Then we can have a meaningful discussion of why you believe what you believe.

I'm not going to be able to describe my idea of God in detail. A big part of that definition would entail a profound mystery, which will obviously mean that a detailed description is impossible.

The first time I read the Tao te Ching I became angry and frustrated with it because all I could see in it were deliberate self-contradictions. It would state something, and then deliberately contradict itself. "The tao that can be spoken of (or written of) is not the eternal tao." Then why have you written this sentence, and why am I reading it??? See what I mean?

But I was just a college kid back then. I didn't get it at all.

Some ten years later I read the Tao te Ching again, and this time I did get a few of the poems in it. And I appreciated them a lot, things like: "When people see some things as beautiful, other things become ugly. When people see some things as good, other things become bad". Yet I was still very frustrated by the direct self-contradiction that I found in so many of the poems.

Anther ten years had passed by the time I tried reading it again. And in this time period, my life had been destroyed and rebuilt. And this time I could finally understand what I was reading. And not only did it not frustrate me, but I actually saw that there was a lot of intended humor in the poems.

To speak of "God" is to speak of something that cannot ultimately be put into words. The God that I could capture with my intellect is not going to be the God that exists if God does exist. I know this. Yet it's in my nature to desire to speak of my experiences with this mystery, anyway. If you can accept and put up with such obtuseness, we can perhaps try and discuss it.

 

[Copernicus]

That simply isn't true. I find that the further into religious study you go, the more intelligent the people you meet, and the less anthropomorphic their ideal of God becomes.

You have claimed that it is anthropomorphism that is the "intellectual invention", but I see that claim as ironic. Clearly, most people imagine gods as personal beings that have absolute control over some aspect of reality (all aspects, in the case of the Abrahamic God). If you replace "intelligent" with "intellectual" in the above statement, then I would certainly agree with the observation. More abstract, less anthropomorphic concepts of God are the intellectual inventions. Historically, efforts to de-anthropomorphize God fail precisely because such over-intellectualization renders God fairly useless.

Because it is an easy idea to grasp, mentally. And in times of great stress, this ease becomes important. It's the equivalent of the 'foxhole prayer'.

I think that we agree considerably on the effects and utility of anthropomorphism. My reaction is that using utility as a basis for concluding that God exists is a fallacious argument from consequences. Behavior driven by extreme circumstances does not make a compelling argument for what we ought to believe under normal circumstances. Anthropomorphism is attractive because of the way we understand the world. We understand it in terms of analogy with personal experiences. If everything in reality is driven by external agents with human-like qualities, then that makes threats to our survival potentially controllable. We can appeal to the powerful beings that have the power to mitigate or eliminate them. It has taken humans thousands of years to come up with a better way to understand nature--empirical investigation. Science is more effective than prayer at keeping us safe.

Yes, they can. Lonely people can find a friend by imagining that "God" is human-like. People with unresolved parental issues can sometimes work them out through a god-image that is human (parental) like. People who have not been taught to self-discipline can sometimes learn this by imaging God to be their personal disciplinarian. There are any number of good and useful ways we can use an anthropomorphic image of God. But speaking for myself, I have found this sort of God-image mostly only useful in terms of expedience. Yet perhaps some of the above mentioned factor play a role in that.

I very much agree with the points you make here, although we arrive at different conclusions about the ultimate benefit of religious belief. Nothing fails quite so often and quite so spectacularly as prayer. While religious belief can prove beneficial, it can also prove harmful to oneself and others. I don't think that I need to give you examples of that, as we discuss them quite often in this forum.

Neither one of us speak for anyone else's idea of God. All I can tell you is that my experience of re-entering the church as an adult showed me that many of the people there held a far more sophisticated and complex ideal of God than the simple human-like image that I'd been taught as a child, and many atheists seem to insist that most theists believe in.

The older we get, the more sophisticated we become. And our rationalizations become more sophisticated, as well.

Yes, annointed with God's spirit of love and forgiveness.

No, "annointed" in the way that Jewish kings were during the heyday of their empire. Nowadays, of course, we use the term in more metaphorical ways.

Things change, and people grow. There are good an positive ways of using an anthropomorphic god-image and there are ways in which such an image is debilitating. And there are other ways of conceptualizing God all together. I have had the impression for a long time that what most people who call themselves atheists are objecting to isn't God or religion, but a specific kind of magical thinking that for some reason clearly annoys them. That's just my impression.

It's hard to generalize why people lose religious faith. Certainly, there are many who simply grow up without a religious indoctrination. There are few people left who have to think long and hard about giving up belief in the Norse gods. But many people, like myself, simply came to the conclusion that the reasons for belief were too weak to sustain the belief and the reasons against belief were too strong to overcome skepticism. Given the usefulness of gods, many who would otherwise fall into atheism are able to shore up their defenses against natural skepticism with elaborate rationalizations.

 

[Vile Atheist]

My own being has been literally saved from death and restored to health in no small part by the ideal of a benevolent "higher power". And I have personally witnessed the same happen in the lives of many other people. So for me this is not a belief I come by purely through intellectual argument or reason. And it's an idea that I would not give up purely for those reasons, either. For me, the idea of "God" is an idea that works in my life, positively and consistently. And this is powerful evidence in support of the accuracy of the idea. The fact that this experiential evidence does not translate to people who don't really want it to doesn't concern me in the least.

I can understand and see why the idea of God can be a positive influence for some people.

If you want my opinion on the matter, I think most people's idea of God - especially the anthropomorphised ones - is just the personification of hope through adversity. Think about it.

The story of (the Christian) God is all about battling evil (adversity) and that if we wait (hope) for our Messiah (something/someone to save us...maybe save ourselves), we can overcome and live in Heaven (happiness).

The act of prayer is an act that helps us overcome adversity and can be a powerful psychological tool in helping us cope. I know. It has helped me through some of the toughest times in my life (namely, my father's death when I was young).

But it's symbolism. We are the ones that overcome the adversity. We are the ones that rely on ourselves to get us through the thick of it all. On occasion, we rely on others. I think that's what life is all about. We overcome difficulty to live better lives. Not where we are personally happy necessarily, but one where we can contribute to the happiness of others. A child struggles with math homework, but eventually learns how to add and subtract and multiply and divide, making his life a lot easier. A teen lives with an abusive, alcoholic father, and grows up to teach other teens how to overcome. We erupt in arguments with our friends and loved ones, only to realize what is really important. I think God for most people is this basic notion with "fluff" added to it.

If that's the kind of God you mean (and that's what I'm sort of getting), I believe in the symbol of that God. I don't believe in that God as a physical being. I don't think that God actually exists. But I think what it represents very much exists.

I'm not going to be able to describe my idea of God in detail. A big part of that definition would entail a profound mystery, which will obviously mean that a detailed description is impossible.

If you don't know its properties, how can you reason that it exists?

The first time I read the Tao te Ching I became angry and frustrated with it because all I could see in it were deliberate self-contradictions. It would state something, and then deliberately contradict itself. "The tao that can be spoken of (or written of) is not the eternal tao." Then why have you written this sentence, and why am I reading it??? See what I mean?

But I was just a college kid back then. I didn't get it at all. ...

I understand what you mean. In a sort of trivial example, I can relate. As a kid, I watched the Simpsons and thought it was a funny show. I laughed.

Years later, I caught some re-runs and got more of the jokes and laughed even more. I thought it was a great show.

Years after that, after knowing more of history and having a lot more experience, I was able to draw parallels between the characters and stories of The Simpsons to real historical events and see Groening's political satire in it. I understood it on a completely different level. On a level that comes with experience and knowledge.

The same is true for books I've read. Some books are best read a second time.

But you also have to keep in mind your experiences lead you to your views. And different experience may lead to different views. My experience has shown me that religion is man-made and God probably as well. While it is true this may change with time, I remain unconvinced.

 

[PureX]

I can understand and see why the idea of God can be a positive influence for some people.

If you want my opinion on the matter, I think most people's idea of God - especially the anthropomorphised ones - is just the personification of hope through adversity. Think about it.

The story of (the Christian) God is all about battling evil (adversity) and that if we wait (hope) for our Messiah (something/someone to save us...maybe save ourselves), we can overcome and live in Heaven (happiness).

The act of prayer is an act that helps us overcome adversity and can be a powerful psychological tool in helping us cope. I know. It has helped me through some of the toughest times in my life (namely, my father's death when I was young).

But it's symbolism. We are the ones that overcome the adversity. We are the ones that rely on ourselves to get us through the thick of it all. On occasion, we rely on others. I think that's what life is all about. We overcome difficulty to live better lives. Not where we are personally happy necessarily, but one where we can contribute to the happiness of others. A child struggles with math homework, but eventually learns how to add and subtract and multiply and divide, making his life a lot easier. A teen lives with an abusive, alcoholic father, and grows up to teach other teens how to overcome. We erupt in arguments with our friends and loved ones, only to realize what is really important. I think God for most people is this basic notion with "fluff" added to it.

If that's the kind of God you mean (and that's what I'm sort of getting), I believe in the symbol of that God. I don't believe in that God as a physical being. I don't think that God actually exists. But I think what it represents very much exists.

This is very well stated, and clearly understood. You're a good writer. And I agree mostly with the way you have encapsulated it. "God" is a kind of "X-factor" that we use to find wisdom, strength and courage within ourselves that we either didn't have, or didn't know we had. And this is it's real gift. The idea of "God" combined with the phenomena of 'gestalt' can change us to an amazing degree and sometimes in an almost instantaneous fashion. But it's a very difficult set of ideas to comprehend, and use.

As an alcoholic I came finally to understand that I had lost all control over my drinking. That's what being an alcoholic means - this loss of control. I had also reached the point in my drinking where it had become chronic, which means that it was destroying both my health and my life. I couldn't work. I couldn't maintain relationships. I couldn't do anything I set myself to do because I'd always end up drunk, instead. And I had tried with all my might to overcome this addiction with absolutely zero success. The alcoholism won every fight I waged with it, every single time.

I realized that I was hopelessly condemned to die a drunk because I could not do what I would have to do to get out of this trap. And no one else could do it for me. The full realization of this finally washed over me one morning and broke me, as a person.

It was at this time that I called Alcoholics Anonymous. I don't really even know why I did that, because I did not believe they could help me. I was certain that I was doomed. Yet I felt like I had to do SOMETHING, and I simply couldn't think of anything else.

I started to go to AA meetings every day, hoping that at least if I was sitting in an AA meeting, I wouldn't be drinking while I was there. And immediately they began talking about a set of steps that I could take that could get me and keep me sober. But I didn't believe them because the one true thing I had finally gotten into my head was that being addicted to alcohol meant that I was powerless over my drinking. And they agreed. Yet they kept telling me that although I could not stop drinking by my own will, that I could stop with the help of a "higher power". But I wasn't much of a god-believer, and I didn't understand what they meant, or how such a thing could work, so they just told me to think of the group as my "higher power". After all, the group was able to stay sober, and that was more than I could do. So if nothing else, they were a power greater than me in that sense. And then they told me that if I wanted what they had, then to do what they did to get it. Follow the steps.

That was in January of '93 and I have not had a drink since. Somehow, this idea of a "higher power" had given me the strength I needed to stop drinking, that I'm certain I did not possess, before. And by rightly defining that "higher power" (relative to the problem at hand) it was able to give me the courage and wisdom of all those who had gone before me and through them the ability to completely change myself, and my life.

I was a hard core chronic drunk, so it took me a long time shed all the BS that had accumulated in my head due to the disease, and to finally become myself, and to be happy with that. But it did happen, and I don't believe any other method could have worked. I'm still amazed that any method worked.

The idea of God gave me a way to see hope when all logic and reason led to was complete hopelessness. True addiction is logically hopeless. Some folks maybe could have gotten out of that trap using the magical thinking of over-simplistic religion (God will give me a miracle), but I was not capable of believing in that, and I'm still not.

And yet in a way, God DID give me a miracle. God did for me what I couldn't do for myself, and all that was asked of me was to stop trying to do it myself. All I was asked to do was relax, trust in a power greater than myself, and follow the path of those who had walked out of the trap before me.

If you don't know its properties, how can you reason that it exists?

The same way I reason that love exists. Or that art exists. These have 'properties', but their properties are always changing and difficult to describe. Their properties are subjective experience. Ask someone to describe love in a way that you can know it exists. They won't likely be able to do it. But this certainly doesn't make love unreal. Nor does it make love insignificant.

I understand what you mean. In a sort of trivial example, I can relate. As a kid, I watched the Simpsons and thought it was a funny show. I laughed.

Years later, I caught some re-runs and got more of the jokes and laughed even more. I thought it was a great show.

Years after that, after knowing more of history and having a lot more experience, I was able to draw parallels between the characters and stories of The Simpsons to real historical events and see Groening's political satire in it. I understood it on a completely different level. On a level that comes with experience and knowledge.

The same is true for books I've read. Some books are best read a second time.

But you also have to keep in mind your experiences lead you to your views. And different experience may lead to different views. My experience has shown me that religion is man-made and God probably as well. While it is true this may change with time, I remain unconvinced.

Yes, we are entrapped by our own limited experiences and expectations. We can't be expected to understand that which we have no experience of. But that's all the more reason to try and remain open-minded.

 

[Vile Atheist]

Sorry to hear about your difficulties, PureX. I'm glad you got over them.

 

[PureX]

Sorry to hear about your difficulties, PureX. I'm glad you got over them.

Thank you.

I think everyone gets their turn in that 'fox hole' sooner or later. That's when they'll need "God". When that need becomes real, so will "God", I think.

 

[Commoner]

I think everyone gets their turn in that 'fox hole' sooner or later. That's when they'll need "God". When that need becomes real, so will "God", I think.

Not knowing when to stop...

Yeah, us atheists all must have perfect lives, don't we? Oh, but don't worry fellow non-believers, our time shall come! No doubt destiny has a hole waiting for us somewhere, and when we fall and feel desperate - that's when we'll be able to have a resonable discussion on the subject of god. Before that, we just don't know any better, huh?

There are atheists in fox-holes and there are atheists struggling to overcome extreme adversity in their lives. And there are christians and muslims and taoists and budists doing the same thing. This has nothing to do with the subject we're discussing. If you have any evidence for a god, present it. We've been patient long enough.