The existence of god

[Runewolf1973]

Can't really put a name to it, can't put a word to it. It just EXISTS.

 

[darkendless]

God is a man made creation. Ever noticed that every person has a different conception of what God is, what he stands for, and what he thinks about different moral dilemmas? Ever noticed the efficiency of the organisation that claims to get you closer to God? Yes, religion is big business. Also if God wasn't made in the mind i doubt there would be so many atheists. If God wasout there, i think there would be a more conscise way to find him because most people would have hadthe same vision.

 

[rojse]

Reality or neurological illusion, God was discovered, not invented.

Would only correct you by saying that the concept of God was discovered, not invented.

 

[Storm]

Yeah, but that sounded pedantic and inelegant.

 

[chaffdog]

You're still ignoring my basic point. Are you dodging, or just missing the forest for the trees?

Yeah, I think I'm missing the point. I was responding to the comment "Because it would be pathetically obvious that you were just making up a story, and nobody would believe you. It only works in context "

Not just a study, but an entire (fledgling) field: neurotheology, the study of the neurology behind mystical experiences. I'm not aware of anything conveniently online, I'm afraid. My information comes primarily from the book Why God Won't Go Away: Brain Science & The Biology Of Belief by Dr.s Newberg and D'Aquili, which I highly recommend. The good doctors' findings prove that mystical experiences are neurologically real events, distinct from hallucination, for example.

I'll be sure to check it out.

But of course, your argument completely ignores the inarguable fact that such events happen in the first place, which is just ridiculous.

Such events, please elaborate. I don't understand what you're saying.

There's also the spandrel theory (or hypothesis, to be technical), which you also ignore.

That's true, but it is only one possible explanation, with no proof.

I don't recall why I chose the phrasing "implies," actually. The science clearly shows that God was not simply invented. Which, again, makes your speculation pointless.

I'm still thinking.

Howso?

Moral codes, dietary laws, frightening - even hopeless - End Time prophesies, and the numerous speculations on the afterlife which are somewhat less than comforting.

Moral codes save us from guilt and protect society from immoral behaviour. Dietary laws spare us from dealing with the problem of the morals of eg eating meat. End time prophesies at least fill the unknown. Anything on the afterlife answers what must be the most disconcerting question that all humans have to face.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

position:

God only exists as a concept in the minds of humans and exists for two reasons, both based on humans' insecurity:

1 - Death. If god/metaphysical setup doesn't exist, then when I die, I will not exist. I cannot comprehend this. I don't want to comprehend this. God is a convenient way out of comprehending this.

2 - Why am I here? how did the big bang come about? Why does anything exist at all? Convenient explanation: invent 'god' and leave it to him.

Your argument is far from convincing...

It's really not even an argument.

 

[Storm]

Yeah, I think I'm missing the point.

OK. My main point is that God was not simply invented, therefore any explanations as to how and why God might have been invented are necessarily wrong.

Such events, please elaborate. I don't understand what you're saying.

Mystical experiences, as described by neurotheology.

That's true, but it is only one possible explanation, with no proof.

As opposed to your OP? I think not.

Moral codes save us from guilt and protect society from immoral behaviour. Dietary laws spare us from dealing with the problem of the morals of eg eating meat. End time prophesies at least fill the unknown. Anything on the afterlife answers what must be the most disconcerting question that all humans have to face.

The argument was that religion was convenient, not useless. I have shown that it is sometimes inconvenient.

 

[danny vee]

God is a man made creation. Ever noticed that every person has a different conception of what God is, what he stands for, and what he thinks about different moral dilemmas? Ever noticed the efficiency of the organisation that claims to get you closer to God? Yes, religion is big business. Also if God wasn't made in the mind i doubt there would be so many atheists. If God wasout there, i think there would be a more conscise way to find him because most people would have hadthe same vision.

Why wouldn't there be so many? We are given free will, we're not robots, we are allowed to make our own decisions. And like I wrote earlier, a person who personally feels God has no doubt of Him.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Perhaps, but then you run into the problem of defining the advantage(s) of religious thought.

You don't necessarily have to find an advantage for every single manifestation of a trait.

Take humans' tendency to have pets; is it advantageous in and of itself? Probably not. Unless you're talking about a working animal (i.e. not most pets), a pet represents a drain on resources without an evolutionary advantage for the owner. However, if you see it as one manifestation of a larger trait, e.g. a tendency to emotionally bond with cute things, then the trait may be advantageous on the whole because it causes all sorts of advantageous behaviours... like instilling the desire to raise and care for children.

I think that many forms of religion can be looked at in the same way: in a general sense, I think it's natural and advantageous to do things like try to control the environment around you (which can manifest as things like shelter-building, agriculture, or intercessionary prayer) or infer causality from correlation (which can manifest as "if you drink water from this brackish pond, you'll get sick" or "if you do things to anger the gods, you'll suffer and die").

 

[chaffdog]

As opposed to your OP? I think not.

The basis of my statement is that there is no proof or observation that supports the idea of god other than the fact that humans believe in it. I then went on to conclude that man invented god, and gave it the most logical reason: convenience. What I stated was almost purely logical, with very little speculation on things that cannot be observed and have nothing tangible to support them. The spandrel theory, however, I would say has a high speculation content. (ok, speculation isn't really the right word, but you get what I mean).

 

[Falvlun]

The science clearly shows that God was not simply invented. Which, again, makes your speculation pointless.

Maybe if you could explain the science more fully; right now it just sounds like you are stating something as a fact, with no support or reason except that "I say that the science says so".

I do not know the study you are citing specifically, but from what I have read about neurology and religion, I don't think that your presentation of it is completely accurate.

Just because our brains might be hardwired to believe does not, in itself, support the idea that God was discovered, or that God was not invented. How did our brains get to be this way in the first place? Perhaps it is evolutionarily advantageous for us to believe. Perhaps those who had a tendency to believe bred more successfully, thus passing on the "believer gene" (I am using the term very very loosely).

Evolutionarily speaking, we are a continuum. We are not a "finished product", we never were and never will be. So, our brains weren't just "made that way", and stuff was not put in them for us to "discover".

Reality or neurological illusion, God was discovered, not invented

Would only correct you by saying that the concept of God was discovered, not invented.

Yeah, but that sounded pedantic and inelegant.

Actually, it sounds more correct. By saying that we discovered God, you are claiming that there actually was a God to find. You are assuming the existence of God. On the other hand, discovering the concept of God does not contain the same assumption.

 

[Willamena]

Actually, it sounds more correct. By saying that we discovered God, you are claiming that there actually was a God to find. You are assuming the existence of God. On the other hand, discovering the concept of God does not contain the same assumption.

Except that in saying you discovered the concept of God you're assuming the prior existence of the concept of God.

Concepts are conceived (ideas brought together in new form), not discovered.

 

[BaronVonKaiser]

Stand outside this living universal body, and as an outside observer, prove to me that in the beginning there was not a singularity that has become this living universal body and all therein including yourself who is joined to the singularity of origin by an eternal and unbroken genetic thread of life, and prove to me that this universal body is not a living entity, which is prevaded by an animating force or soul, in which body a supreme personality of Godhead has developed, which is Lord of all within the creation and capable of comprehending the 'I Am,' an intellect that you, the outside observer cannot see, then and only then will you prove to me that there is not a God from who all things have come into existence, by whom all things have come into existence and for whom all things exist.

It would seem to me that the burden of proof would lie with the person claiming the existence of an unproven entity.

I like this topic, being agnostic I suppose this very topic is what everything boils down to. From what I can tell thus far though, every concept that science has been able to explain (although there is a lot more out there to learn) does not require God to function. There are all kinds of variables that the universe uses, but none of them are God. Science does seem to point back in time to a big bang, an initial singularity as was mentioned, but that still doesn't seem to indicate to me that a god was required. If you want to call the singularity god... doesn't really matter, call it googaly-boogaly for all the difference it makes, it is what it is. It would seem from a scientific standpoint to be impossible to ascertain anything prior to the flashpoint of that initial singularity, so saying that some god created it is an entirely baseless theory without supporting evidence, but if someone disagree's I'm all ears.

 

[Falvlun]

Except that in saying you discovered the concept of God you're assuming the prior existence of the concept of God.

Concepts are conceived (ideas brought together in new form), not discovered.

I would agree. But you also can't say we've "discovered God", when there is no proof that there is actually a God to discover. All we have is the concept of God, and since, as you say, the concept can not be discovered either, then it must have been invented.

 

[Storm]

The basis of my statement is that there is no proof or observation that supports the idea of god other than the fact that humans believe in it. I then went on to conclude that man invented god, and gave it the most logical reason: convenience. What I stated was almost purely logical, with very little speculation on things that cannot be observed and have nothing tangible to support them. The spandrel theory, however, I would say has a high speculation content. (ok, speculation isn't really the right word, but you get what I mean).

And you're still ignoring my point.

 

[Storm]

Maybe if you could explain the science more fully; right now it just sounds like you are stating something as a fact, with no support or reason except that "I say that the science says so".

We've already addressed this. There's nothing conveniently online for me to cite, so you'll all have to settle for the book recommendation. As for explaining it myself, I'm no neurologist, and I don't trust myself not to screw it up.

Just because our brains might be hardwired to believe does not, in itself, support the idea that God was discovered, or that God was not invented. How did our brains get to be this way in the first place? Perhaps it is evolutionarily advantageous for us to believe. Perhaps those who had a tendency to believe bred more successfully, thus passing on the "believer gene" (I am using the term very very loosely).

The fact that mystical experiences happen at all is proof that the concept wasn't simply invented.

Evolutionarily speaking, we are a continuum. We are not a "finished product", we never were and never will be. So, our brains weren't just "made that way", and stuff was not put in them for us to "discover".

Yeah, I know. "Discover" is a poor turn of phrase, but I can't come up with anything better.

Actually, it sounds more correct. By saying that we discovered God, you are claiming that there actually was a God to find. You are assuming the existence of God. On the other hand, discovering the concept of God does not contain the same assumption.

Uh, no, I'm not. I thought I made it pretty clear that I was referring to a certain type of experience. "God" is just the explanation.

 

[darkendless]

We've already addressed this. There's nothing conveniently online for me to cite, so you'll all have to settle for the book recommendation. As for explaining it myself, I'm no neurologist, and I don't trust myself not to screw it up.


The fact that mystical experiences happen at all is proof that the concept wasn't simply invented.


Yeah, I know. "Discover" is a poor turn of phrase, but I can't come up with anything better.


Uh, no, I'm not. I thought I made it pretty clear that I was referring to a certain type of experience. "God" is just the explanation.

Mystical experiences are often mistaken with a lack of understanding of the situation.

A point Falvun made, we are not born to believe we are programmed.

 

[DallasApple]

Mystical experiences are often mistaken with a lack of understanding of the situation.

A point Falvun made, we are not born to believe we are programmed.

And they are often not.

Love

Dallas

 

[Storm]

Mystical experiences are often mistaken with a lack of understanding of the situation.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Rephrase, please?

 

[darkendless]

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Rephrase, please?

People often believe they see things and because they do not understand natural phenomena they immediately believe it is a mystical experience.

Aurora borealis, earthquakes, floods were all believed to be mystical experiences. Then there's personal experiences. I don't speak for all here but im sure most of them feign experiences for attention/acceptance/money/15 minutes of fame and so forth. other people just hillucinate because they're whacked on drugs. Visions on the other hand from genuine people?

I know i've had some pretty messed up visions but im no neurologist so ill accept that my head wasn't in the right place. I certainly will not claim i've seen god or anything of the sort.