Why Did We Evolve the Notion of God?

[GadFly]

Too simplistic.

Often the truth is simple. In this case meogi's reasoning is very rational.

 

[GadFly]

If you meant thinking my to religion, then the answer is no. Religion is not something you "think yourself into". I don't rule out the possibility of my conversion to a religion, but it wouldn't be based on reasoning my way there.

What would it be based on? What non-reasoning process would lead you to any place? Are you admitting that reasoning is not a factor in your assessment of values? Thank about what you just said.

 

[GadFly]

I think, rather, that we evolved the notion of God because we are rational and realized an explanation ("realize" as in to make real). That, of course, requires understanding.

What it is that is understood, though, is the point of contention between all beliefs.

The fact that we are rational and "realized an explanation" supports Plato's philosophy is true. Realized an explanation acknowledged you really to believe that experience synthesizes to "reveal" knowledge you already have. There are 1000's of these admissions in all of man's conversations but these admissions must be pointed out at times or people would not acknowledge that truth exist and does not evolve at all. Very good point. Follow your truth with correct reasoning and you will not have to believe only what people tell you.

 

[Willamena]

How so? That would appear to be the exact opposite of the contemporary notion of randomness.

"I washed my car today. I just know it's going to rain."

 

[GadFly]

Then why is everyone still disagreeing with you?

Everyone is not disagreeing with me. In fact all of Western Civilization agrees with me. My ideas are absolutely in the majority. Your premise to your question is faulty. But as you admit, you do not go by reasoning to lead you anywhere.That comes from one of your own admissions and not a personal attack. Attack my logic, it is open for discussion. That clearly is something atheist avoid.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Your answer should be a clue to the strength of your premises for reasoning.

Oh, my -- I think he thinks he said something coherent. :no:

 

[Willamena]

Seems to me an objective reality cannot ever be experienced. I see experience as always subjective.

What is the difference between these two realities?

 

[Magic Man]

Everyone is not disagreeing with me. In fact all of Western Civilization agrees with me. My ideas are absolutely in the majority. Your premise to your question is faulty. But as you admit, you do not go by reasoning to lead you anywhere.That comes from one of your own admissions and not a personal attack. Attack my logic, it is open for discussion. That clearly is something atheist avoid.

Maybe you should read my response again. For these purposes, we can base our knowledge on what we see here on this site. On this site, I have only seen 2 people agree with you, which would be in the neighborhood of .1% of the population here. Why would this low a number of people agree with you here, when in the rest of the world, you claim the majority (read more than 50%) agree with you.

I challenge you to show me where I said I don't go by reasoning. What I said was that, for me to believe in religion, I would have to forego my reasoning, because that way only lies atheism to me.

 

[Magic Man]

What is the difference between these two realities?

One we believe exists without our perception of it, the other only exists because of our perception.

 

[GadFly]

Why do you think that your ideas would be in the majority in Western civilization, and still be opposed by all but 1 or 2 people on here? Don't you think that if that was the case, more than .1% of the population on these forums would agree with you?

Again your premise is faulty and your attack is personal. You do not know that only one or two people agree with me on this forum. My guess is that many on here agree with me but they avoid the threads we discuss on simply because they avoid the type of abuse that I can tolerate. You have yet to challenge any of my premises for reasoning. Get with the stated goals of the forum please.

 

[Willamena]

Maybe you should read my response again. For these purposes, we can base our knowledge on what we see here on this site. On this site, I have only seen 2 people agree with you, which would be in the neighborhood of .1% of the population here. Why would this low a number of people agree with you here, when in the rest of the world, you claim the majority (read more than 50%) agree with you.

I challenge you to show me where I said I don't go by reasoning. What I said was that, for me to believe in religion, I would have to forego my reasoning, because that way only lies atheism to me.

You're going off-topic again. Perhaps just let it go.

 

[Escéptico]

"I washed my car today. I just know it's going to rain."

Out of Africa, still in the Paleolithic.

 

[Magic Man]

Editted to avoid getting further off topic, as wisely suggested by Willamena.

 

[GadFly]

How do you define revelation? Is it so broad as to cover anything we experience, learn, or even think?

The following is my definition of revelation based on the premises I have stated. What we call revelation is the revealing of truth that already exist; it is the culmination of all experiences both sensual and spiritual that reminds of the truth that already exist.
I hope this helps.
GadFly

 

[Wandered Off]

What is the difference between these two realities? (subjective & objective)

Other than that one can't be experienced? I guess that an objective reality is hypothetical, though I expect its existence is accepted by all but solipsists. We can't actually perceive a difference, as that would be a form of experience contrary to objectivity. We can only assume one. Maybe there really isn't one.

 

[Charity]

:yes: I am in agreement with GadFly.....Why can't we just get on with the forum and quit taking time to have an election on who agrees with someone or not.....

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

What we call revelation is the revealing of truth that already exist; ...

As opposed to (presumably) the revealing of truth that does not already exist. Got it ...

 

[Sunstone]

We have kept on target by straightening out your logic and correcting the gaps in reasoning. We have shown you that truth does not come from evolution of concepts but is revealed by experience which synthesis claims is evolution but is really revelation. If it was not this way, it would not be possible to reason, use science, or progress at all in our knowledge of religion. In short, we have solved the problem that atheist have with semantical confusion by changing premises in the middle of discussion.

On the contrary, you have spun off topic appreciably faster than two deluded lunatics in a lunatic bin would if they attempted to discuss the intricacies of quantum mechanics with each other. Let me put this in words that might resonate with the likes of you: You have sinned against my beautiful thread. Repent!

 

[Willamena]

Other than that one can't be experienced?

In what way is it "real" then?

I guess that an objective reality is hypothetical, though I expect its existence is accepted by all but solipsists. We can't actually perceive a difference, as that would be a form of experience contrary to objectivity. We can only assume one. Maybe there really isn't one.

A wise man once said there are no real solipsists. I prefer to think he was being witty in the way that we find the best wit in speaking truth.

If there's no real difference, why maintain the split of reality into two?

 

[meogi]

For purposes of this thread, I'm using "mystical experience" in the terms of neurotheology. In short, they're trance states that, as Sunstone puts it, briefly ngate the subject/object divide.

Ah, neurotheology. Still havn't had a chance to read Why God Won't Go Away, was recommended by someone here earlier.

I just don't think that they were THAT primitive. Not so primitive that they couldn't tell the difference betweenreality and their own imaginations. That's not primitive, it's stupid.

I doubt they were stupid too. I just doubt they had the scientific understanding of nature that we do now. I do think you give them too much credit for questioning existance, however. Whatever explanations they came up with worked for them; I doubt with hunting all the time we really had a chance to sit down and discuss the nature of reality.

It should be noted that in that time, from my admittedly limited understanding of archaeology/ anthropology, there probably weren't "gods" in the sense we mean it. Religion was more likely animism, ancestor worship, or a mix of the two.

I really have no idea, I don't know if we have any evidence of anything besides bones/tools from over 20,000 years ago.

To restrict the discussion to biology alone excludes the question of how we came up with God in the first place.

I was just thinking in terms of evolution, understood.