Why Did We Evolve the Notion of God?

[GadFly]

Instead of being frustrated with why someone can't seem to understand you're perspective, why don't you try to understand THEIR perspective FIRST? It could just be that you're not doing a very good job of communicating your ideas.

In defense of Rolling_Stone he has presented his disagreement with atheist in a very intellectual and honest manner. He has not resorted to name calling or trait sarcasm as his opponents have. As to understanding their perspective first, he does understand perspective, especially his own. In your uncriticizing Rolling_Stone do you consider it from your perspective of being a Christian?

Those who attack Rolling_Stone are not attacking his truth, they are attacking him personally because they are not capable of rational reasoning which could attack his truth. What Rolling_Stone realizes is that no matter who disagrees with atheist or how they do it, it is a first response of atheist to make the message carrier out to be causing trouble with outrageous statement about the carrier of truth. In other words, when they can not refute the truth they call names, question their character, accuse them of being arrogant, stubborn, and a trouble maker.

Read through the forums in reference to atheist attacking Christians. Objectively decide whether you would rather side with the atheist or with your criticism of Rolling Stone from your perspective of being a Christian.
God bless
GadFly

 

[Wandered Off]

In what way is it "real" then?

I guess any interaction with others would be evidence of it. For example, you and I can look at a thread and communicate. There must be this object we are discussing, and it is not entirely internal to you or me. Based on my interactions, I infer its reality.

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.

I like that one!

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

I'm not the one who said there's no real difference. I think there is a difference, and that's why I imagine a split. It's in my model...

 

[Storm]

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

Probably me. Excellent book.

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.

Well, they had the time and the inclination to come up with God in the first place.

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.

Well, I'm no expert. We do have some presumably religious artifacts, however, like the Venus figurines.

 

[Willamena]

I guess any interaction with others would be evidence of it. For example, you and I can look at a thread and communicate. There must be this object we are discussing, and it is not entirely internal to you or me. Based on my interactions, I infer its reality.

Cool. I agree that it is your (and my) interaction with it that lends it reality.

I'm not the one who said there's no real difference. I think there is a difference, and that's why I imagine a split. It's in my model...

My bad --I read "can't actually perceive a difference" as being no difference... that we could perceive.


But if we do away with the split, it is neither "internal to you or me" nor external. It's just reality.

 

[meogi]

Well, they had the time and the inclination to come up with God in the first place.

True, but did they question explanations after they were thought of? Primitive debates and such, hehe. It was more likely that once an adequate expanation was thought of, relatively little thought went into it afterwards. But that's pure speculation, I don't think anyone will ever really know.

Well, I'm no expert. We do have some presumably religious artifacts, however, like the Venus figurines.

Thanks for the link.

 

[Storm]

True, but did they question explanations after they were thought of? Primitive debates and such, hehe. It was more likely that once an adequate expanation was thought of, relatively little thought went into it afterwards. But that's pure speculation, I don't think anyone will ever really know.

Well, you're right that we'll probably never know, but my argument is that "goddidit" is only an explanation if you already believe in God.

Thanks for the link.

You're most welcome.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

In defense of Rolling_Stone...

Thank you Gadfly, but there are other threads where I have been more...uh, abrasive?...but not here. I have been to the point and it's rather telling that, unless I missed it, there was no response to my post (#194) regarding one of atheism's arguments--"randomness" (maybe I'm just being ignored ).

Scientific materialism has gone bankrupt when it persists, in the face of each recurring universe phenomenon, in refunding its current objections by referring what is admittedly higher [ordered] back into that which is admittedly lower [chaotic]. Consistency demands the recognition of the activities of a purposive Creator.
U. Book

Whatever you think of the source, the logic is incontrovertible.

 

[yossarian22]

Randomness or "chance" is the soft pillow of ignorance.

True randomness, yes.
Statistical randomness is vastly different.

 

[yossarian22]

Thank you Gadfly, but there are other threads where I have been more...uh, abrasive?...but not here. I have been to the point and it's rather telling that, unless I missed it, there was no response to my post (#194) regarding one of atheism's arguments--"randomness" (maybe I'm just being ignored ).

No, I just didn't read it. Although you have taken to ignoring my posts in a few other threads.
I admit they all are nothing more than Occam's Razor rebranded. Just wondering if you have an actual response to it besides your previous weak attempts at arguing for a 'frame of reference' which invalidates your criticisms of materialism.

Scientific materialism has gone bankrupt when it persists, in the face of each recurring universe phenomenon, in refunding its current objections by referring what is admittedly higher [ordered] back into that which is admittedly lower [chaotic]. Consistency demands the recognition of the activities of a purposive Creator.

First off are the quibbles.
Materialism does not force one to accept 'chaotic' creation in the slightest.
Anyhow, this argument hinges on the idea of chaos not existing, something patently untrue. Whoever said that nature was entirely like a function (in the mathetmatical term) It is totally possible for two outcomes to occur from the exact same event. Why can't they? Hell, it has been empirically demonstrated and used to create random numbers. How we know they are random is besides the point.
Now comes the counter argument which basically states "there are unaccounted variables, we just do not know what they are". A simple enough response to brush off with Occam's Razor.

So choas/randomness in the statistical sense exists. But something truly unpredictable doesn't. True unpredictability requires an infinity of possible results.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

No offense, Yoss, but you just don't have anything cogent to say.

 

[yossarian22]

No offense, Yoss, but you just don't have anything cogent to say.

:biglaugh:
This might be a good thing when coming from you

 

[Yerda]

No offense, Yoss, but you just don't have anything cogent to say.

There is no requirement for cogency. We're all trying to understand each other. While we're getting along at our own pace, you're merely causing disruptions.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

There is no requirement for cogency. We're all trying to understand each other. While we're getting along at our own pace, you're merely causing disruptions.

No requirement for cogency in a discussion? Well, that's a new one.:sarcastic

As for causing disruptions, wasn't that the excuse used by the people who condemned Socrates (not that I'm comparing myself to him)? I speak the truth as I see it. Someone follows a series of posts with a total non sequitur and I'm condemned for saying he missed the boat. Another falls back on Occam's razor and "just because" to avoid a logical conclusion, I say it's not cogent. Well, gee willikers, I'm sorry. At any point did I fall back on Godel's therom?

I refer you to post #136. There's a lot of things I could say, but what does "Religion is the attempt to imitate the Ideal-Form" mean to someone whose entire world is "out there"? What does

O prisoner of time,
I was a secret treasure of kindness and generosity,
and I wished this treasure to be known,
so I created a mirror: its shining face, the heart;
its darkened back, the world;


The back would please you if you've never seen the face.

Rumi​

mean? What is the connection or simialrity between the above and "follow the water to its source"?

No, Jaiket, we're not trying to understand each other. Understanding requires the same language, the language of the heart.

Edit: Count the characters in my new signature, and then count the torches.

 

[Yerda]

No requirement for cogency in a discussion? Well, that's a new one.:sarcastic

No. Welcome to plain English.

 

[Magic Man]

No, Jaiket, we're not trying to understand each other.

I guess that says it all. Most of us on here are trying to understand each other. Give it a try sometime, it's fun.

 

[yossarian22]

Another falls back on Occam's razor and "just because" to avoid a logical conclusion, I say it's not cogent.

Stop your whining.
You have not (and probably never will be able to) actually bested me in a debate.
You arguments nullify themselves when applied to materialism, but it seems you either cannot or will not learn.
So all you have left is a complain about Occam's Razor.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

No. Welcome to plain English.

Technically, you're right. In my defense, I thought this was a debate forum.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

Back to the topic. Many in this thread argue that religon is simply a by-product of evolution, but doing so tells us nothing about the why of things. Not one atheist in this discussion (I'm sorry, debate) has looked past the psychological and emotional needs of humans in order to explain religion. Okay, so humans have these tendencies and needs, but why? Are there unseen, existential principles at play? I say, :yes:; atheists in this thread say: and therefore:no:. It's not logical, but like Gadfly implied, when logic fails, change the rules of logic.

How does potentiality become actuality unless a cause brings it about? Could chance effect it? Then it would have never come about, for chaos begets only chaos. What has to be admitted is the act of primal beings sufficient unto themselves and perfect; "Creation" or "emanation" is not to be understood as refering either a temporal process or the unpacking or separating of a potentially complex unity or thought to have some kind of superman directly involved with temporal processes, but rather as a reference to atemporal ontological dependency; The One as absolute simplicity. Things that come and go have only borrowed being, but they on whom they draw are real. Against the variability of the cosmos, there is the unchanging quality of authentic beings. Sense objects are what we say they are only by their borrowing from something more fundamental.

The above (mostly Plotinus) is not new, as one poster would have us believe, in order to have have a god that science allows. Ideas like this go back long, long before science came on the scene to challenge religion. Can it be that human beings have religion because, though distant from The One (what Plotinus calls what I call God), we are not entirely removed from Its presence and respond to it at some level?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Not one atheist in this discussion (I'm sorry, debate) has looked past the psychological and emotional needs of humans in order to explain religion.[/SIZE]

If you look hard enough in imaginary places you will eventually see what you want to see. You 'prove' nothing but your capacity for self-delusion.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

If you look hard enough in imaginary places you will eventually see what you want to see. You 'prove' nothing but your capacity for self-delusion.

Deep. Care to show me where an atheist "followed the water to its source"? Maybe I just missed it.