Are you certain that God exists?

[Cynic]

Here's my opinion:

Love is entirely subjective, it does not exist on an objective level, except as the biochemical process in the brain.

Even smell is subjective. A rotten egg does not have smell objectively, the bad smell is what the brain creates in reaction to those molecules, which is detrimental to our health. This is presumably a function that had evolved into what it is now.

Love is a biochemical process that causes one to become attatched to someone, (even to the point of stalking) as it can become excessive.

For example, this becomes important when a female mates with a male, simply because if a male is not present when she bears children, her survivability and the survivability of her children will decrease. So love is an attatchment mechanism.

 

[Cynic]

I wonder what part of the brain 'fires up' when a person feels intense hate -

Mainly the amygdala but generally the limbic system. Most of the emotional information is processed in the limbic system.

 

[michel]

Mainly the amygdala but generally the limbic system. Most of the emotional information is processed in the limbic system.

Which bring me to the point that, how can we, scientifically, seperate one form of emotion from another, by merely visualising the neural pathways being 'alive' with heavy activity ?

 

[Cynic]

Which bring me to the point that, how can we, scientifically, seperate one form of emotion from another, by merely visualising the neural pathways being 'alive' with heavy activity ?

For one, different glands in the endocrine system secretes different hormones in the blood stream, creating emotional responses. Anger is the release of hormones from the adrenaline glands for example. Even stress is caused by hormones released in the blood stream. The limbic system in the brain mainly acts like a regulator or control center to put it simply.

We can also identify what certain regions of the brain does by locating lesions in the brain that is the cause of neurological disorders/diseases.
There are techniques for determining the relationship between a certain brain function and brain activity (i.e. subtraction technique).

Emotion over Logic
Of course, we have all had bad experiences
with attractive people. These encounters reveal a
major weakness in social perception: that preconceived
notions can lead us to poor decisions. We
are seldom aware of these prejudices, however,
which gives them power over us. They are persistent
and hard to overturn. Tania Singer and Joel
S. Winston of the University College London’s
Institute of Neurology reached that conclusion
when they showed test subjects portraits of various
people. Some of the faces elicited immediate
alarms in the amygdala—a structure near the
brain’s center that is considered the seat of emotion
—indicating that the individuals pictured
“did not inspire trust.” Yet when the subjects
were told later about the good qualities of the
people they had seen, few indicated that the information
changed their initial impression.
Psychologists have been researching social
perception for decades, but it is only recently that
brain imaging and electrical sensing techniques
have begun to elucidate its biological roots. “Social
neuroscience” is still a young discipline, but
discoveries are helping experts decipher what
makes us judge a stranger as friend or foe.
The effect of this dual processing was tested by
neuropsychologist William A. Cunningham, now
at the University of Toronto, and his colleagues. He
placed each of 15 subjects in a magnetic resonance
imaging machine. To each of them, he read aloud
the names of famous people, such as Bill Cosby,
Yasir Arafat and Mahatma Gandhi. The subjects
were instructed to respond to a neutral question
(“Is he alive or dead?”) and an emotionally driven
question (“Is he a good or bad person?”). The
images showed that the subjects answered the
fi rst question with ease. In the second case, Cunningham
observed a considerable increase in the
amygdala’s activity, especially in connection with
names that carried negative connotations, such as
Adolf Hitler. Yet the forebrain showed approximately
the same level of activity as it had during the
neutral question, irrespective of whether a name
elicited a positive or negative image. In essence,
the amygdala cast the deciding vote on whether
to declare someone good or evil. Emotional assessment
outranked cognitive assessment.
Among its other duties, the amygdala functions
as a danger detector, activated by potential
threat. Its rapid response can instruct us whether
to react with fi ght or fl ight. In pioneering work in
the 1990s, Joseph LeDoux of New York University
showed that angry human faces elicit stronger
responses in the amygdala than known threats
themselves, such as snakes. Recently Ahmad R.
Hariri of the National Institute of Mental Health
imaged the brains of 28 subjects while they viewed
photographs of faces with angry or fearful expressions.
Hariri also showed them pictures of snakes,
sharks and guns. Both sets of pictures elicited a
signifi cant response in the amygdala, but its reaction
to threatening faces was stronger.

The Social Brain
The more active the amygdala becomes, the
more intense our emotional upheaval and the
more our capacity to reason decreases. Decisions
are made intuitively rather than as a result of rational
assessment.

 

[Ahmadi]

The bottom line of what you're saying is: Believe in god, and god will exist. For a personal god, this is perfectly fine, and I have no question of it. But objectively, it can't be used to convince others, and it should not be used to influence others.

I am sorry but you still haven't fully understood me. I am not saying: Believe and He will exist.

I am saying: Believe with the greatest sincerety, devotion and abcolute submission to God and He will reveal Himself in a more direct and clear manner which is unlike before.... and this is the meaning of a true relationship with God which is very, very personal and does result in God demonstrating His existence to His servant to the point that no further evidence for His existence would be required by that servant of God.... Sigh....

So your belief in god doesn't make you feel good? You're just believing out of fear of retribution if you don't? You can't be telling me salvation doesn't feel good...

Salvation is a difficult process. Absolute submission to God requires struggle ... just look at the prophets and their followers and see how much suffering those people had to go through. After the suffering comes the rewards. Without suffering and by just simple declaration that "I believe" might make you 'feel good' (emotionally) but the real reward is only earned through sincere struggle.... Sigh [again]....

Yes, you discussed how to experience a personal god. Spiritual capability? Believe and you'll believe... If you assume god exists, then he exists. You can't use this to suggest the existance of something.

Deep Sigh... Assume? God doesn't exist because of assumption....

 

[Mike182]

i dont know much at all about bio chemistry, it is way more complicated than descart in my oppinion - but as far as im aware, we know very little about anything in the grand scheme of things, yet it all works and fits together, and to me, this is evidence of a designer

then the question is "how can i know that this designer is the 'god' i think it is?"

well, i cannot say that i know for sure that it is god, but thats why it's called faith (thats not intended to be patronising )

C_P

 

[Ahmadi]

The Social Brain
The more active the amygdala becomes, the
more intense our emotional upheaval and the
more our capacity to reason decreases. Decisions
are made intuitively rather than as a result of rational
assessment.

I totally agree with this but I think you are trying to make the point that belief in God is only an emotional decision but this is where you are wrong. I do not dispute the fact that there are many people (perhaps even the majority) who believe in God 'intuitively' and not based on a rational assessment. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why there are so many religions in the world and so many more sub-divisions of those relgions.
However, rational assessment can be made and the question is How?

My answer is that the only solid reason for the existence of God is His direct speech/revelations to man. In this case, I would like to present my opinion of the Holy Quran and its ability to stand up to rational assessment. The consistency, accuracy, knowledge of the unseen, etc. which is contained in the Quran as well as the truthfulness of the prophet on whom it descended is evidence that it is from God. In fact, there are 750 verses (almost 1/8th of the Quran) which encourage the believers to study Nature and "to reflect, to make the best use of reason and to make the scientific enterprise an intergral part of the community's life" - Dr. Mohammed Aijazul Khatib.

 

[meogi]

I am sorry but you still haven't fully understood me. I am not saying: Believe and He will exist.

Thanks for clarifying!

I am saying: Believe with the greatest sincerety, devotion and abcolute submission to God and He will reveal Himself in a more direct and clear manner which is unlike before.... and this is the meaning of a true relationship with God which is very, very personal and does result in God demonstrating His existence to His servant to the point that no further evidence for His existence would be required by that servant of God.... Sigh....

Step 1) Believe with the greatest sincerety, devotion, and absolute submission to god.
Step 2) He will reveal himself, strengthening the bond and forming a relationship.
Step 3) The realtionship (resulting from afformentioned belief) demonstrates his existance to his servant, so the servant no longer needs evidence.
Step 4) Believe.

Do you understand why I'm seeing this as circular logic?

Salvation is a difficult process. Absolute submission to God requires struggle ... just look at the prophets and their followers and see how much suffering those people had to go through. After the suffering comes the rewards. Without suffering and by just simple declaration that "I believe" might make you 'feel good' (emotionally) but the real reward is only earned through sincere struggle.... Sigh [again]....

You're still being rewarded for believing though? Even if it's a struggle? Sounds like most things in life...

Deep Sigh... Assume? God doesn't exist because of assumption....

Nope, god exists because of society, and books like the Bible, the Quran, and the Iliad.

HUGE SIGH...​

Forgive me... that may have been inappropriate.​

 

[Ahmadi]

Thanks for clarifying!
Step 1) Believe with the greatest sincerety, devotion, and absolute submission to god.
Step 2) He will reveal himself, strengthening the bond and forming a relationship.
Step 3) The realtionship (resulting from afformentioned belief) demonstrates his existance to his servant, so the servant no longer needs evidence.
Step 4) Believe.

Do you understand why I'm seeing this as circular logic?

Well, okay... so that's what it is... belief and struggle results in an experience of God. But the relationship does not demonstrate His existence to His servant. God demonstrates His existence to the righteous and pious servant. Faith and belief, based on rationality, is a prerequisite for experiencing God. In your understanding, you seem to be disliking the word "Believe" but explain to me what's wrong with it. Belief and rationaility go hand in hand and there is nothing wrong with it.

You're still being rewarded for believing though? Even if it's a struggle? Sounds like most things in life...

I am not sure what you mean but rewards come to those who struggle and not merely claim: "I believe!"

Nope, god exists because of society, and books like the Bible, the Quran, and the Iliad.

Nope, God does not exist because of society. He exists and that's all there is to it. The Quran is a book of God for man's guidance and for his own benefit.

 

[Ahmadi]

An academic God is one who can be proved in the following ways:
1. Cause and effect...
2. The law of entropy...

These arguments are very, very old and have been addressed countless times. At this stage in the dialogue, they can only be seen as pathetically naive.
They are also patheticaly bankrupt, since I could easily grant you the validity of both arguments without in any way improving your position: you have no more basis attributing a 'First Cause' to a Personal God than to a Quantum Unicorn Fart. Your "Academic God" is nothing more than pretense.

Very well, then forget about "Personal" God. There is nothing about First Cause that necessarily entails anything possessing any attribute normally associated with God(s) other than a "First Cause" effect. Call it what you will, but your great "QUF" need have no more consciousness, intentionality, or import than some quantum fluctuation - none of which really matters since the whole concept of "First Cause" is naively entrenched in a Newtonian conception of time and space.

I am replying to a very old post but I have stumbled upon something which I think needs to brought to everyone's attention:

In his 1981/4 book Evolution from Space (co-authored with Chandra Wickramasinghe), he [Fred Hoyle] calculated that the chance of obtaining the required set of enzymes for even the simplest living cell was one in 10[to the power of]40,000. Since the number of atoms in the known universe is infinitesimally tiny by comparison (10[to the power of]80), he argued that even a whole universe full of primordial soup wouldn’t have a chance. He claimed:

The notion that not only the biopolymer but the operating program of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order.

Hoyle infamously compared the random emergence of even the simplest cell to the likelihood that "a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein." Hoyle also compared the chance of obtaining even a single functioning protein by chance combination of amino acids to a solar system full of blind men solving Rubik's Cube simultaneously.

Taken from here.

EDIT: Life is not simply complex, but it goes to the point that it requires a creator.

 

[chuck010342]

If God isn't something you can prove by material means, how can you be certain that God exists?

they same way I know the law of non-countradiction exsist.

basically you would have to be God in order to make sure God doesn't exsist.

There are many things that occur by natural causes rather than supernatural causes. "Spirit" is just a superstitious, superficial understanding of unseen forces that have yet to be explained, IMO. It is human nature that we must explain things. "Spirit" would be the most reasonable explanation for a society that doesn't have tools or the techniques to observe such phenomina. And so, in my speculation, this is how the unseen spiritual world had arisen. Several things that are regarded as being spiritual, are in fact biological, and can be explained as a natural process by making observations with the necassary tools and techniques. By observing, anybody can see that there is, presumably, natural causes that are the driving force of much phenomina, which makes the existence of an unseen spiritual world seem very unlikely (however, there is still a possibility, but nothing to formulate certainty). Anybody --any theist-- with the proper tools, techniques, and the effort to research, will most likely come to this conclusion. I had been a theist for 9 years.

I believe that no one can be certain, a belief in God is a matter of choice not certainty. No one can be sure that God exists, just as no one can be sure about the afterlife, untill it happens and we experience it.
Personally, I build my beliefs based on certainty, and I choose not to come to any conclusions untill there is certainty to support a conclusion. It's a rational process.

I do however consider the possibility that God is not an entity, but is objectively existence and natural cause itself, not the anthropomorphic God that seems to be merely a projection of ourselves. God becomes an entity when God becomes subjective.

so whats your first premise?

 

[Fascist Christ]

How do I know there is a god?

This is a question I think differs from one person to the next. For me, I do not believe from a book or any other form of hearsay. My belief comes from reasoning.

First of all, it is necesary to first define the word before we can determine if it exists. I noticed that these debates usually come down to the matter of a creator. Even that word can draw up many different images, and is therefore still too vague. More precisely, the issue appears to be regarding the begining of our universe.

I intentionally chose "our universe" as opposed to "the Universe" because it is, at this point, impossible for us to know if there is anything beyond the limits of our ever-expanding cosmos. Moreover, we cannot even speculate what laws that might govern the beyond.

What we do know are the laws that govern this unverse. Notably, we have a system of cause and effect - there is no effect without a cause. The begining, therefore, would be the first cause. And so, I define "God" as "First Cause."

This being said, I do not believe supposed supernatural happenings within our universe. We do not know the limits of Nature, and therefore cannot determine if something is beyond the limits of Nature. It is absurd to assume that something has broken a law when we do not even know all of the laws. It is blasphemy against the Legislator to claim that His laws are breakable, and especially so if we claim that He is the lawbreaker - as if to say the Creation wasn't good enough and needed change.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Notably, we have a system of cause and effect - there is no effect without a cause. The begining, therefore, would be the first cause. And so, I define "God" as "First Cause."

What beginning? Based upon what cosmology?

 

[Fascist Christ]

What beginning? Based upon what cosmology?

We are left with two options: a beginning, or no beginning. It makes more sense to me that there is one then there is not one. I do not see any harm in either belief, but I would be lying if I stated that I believe that there was no beginning. Besides, the exact nature of the First Cause is still unknown, and I would not rule out the possibility that it could have consisted of parts of our universe, in some form or other. Electrons? Quarks? Strings and branes? We may never know.

 

[meogi]

In your understanding, you seem to be disliking the word "Believe" but explain to me what's wrong with it.

What's wrong with it is that goes against any objective and observable evidence. Anyone can believe whatever they want, but you can't use belief as an argument, and it's bunk when determining certainty.

Belief and rationaility go hand in hand and there is nothing wrong with it.

If the 2nd is used first, then there is nothing wrong with it. If it's the 1st, which leads to the 2nd, which backs up the 1st, then there's something wrong with it.

I am not sure what you mean but rewards come to those who struggle and not merely claim: "I believe!"

Yes... much like claiming: "I'm rich!" - and many other things in life. How certain you are about attaining this reward through this struggle, however, is what I'm questioning. The difference between saying "I'm rich!" and "I believe!" is that there is certainty that one could be achieved... the other is mere wishful thinking.

Nope, God does not exist because of society. He exists and that's all there is to it. The Quran is a book of God for man's guidance and for his own benefit.

The thing is, if you are certain, there should be objective evidence supporting your claim. Otherwise you're just believing. Much like pah, I believe that god was created by man. We have objective evidence to believe so, and as such, are fairly certain in our claim. Arguing the opposite of it, without evidence, is another reason I have a problem with belief.

That said, I do not doubt the fact that the Quran is a book for man's guidance and benefit. As are the Bible, the US Constitution, the Iliad, and Huck Finn.

 

[Cynic]

they same way I know the law of non-countradiction exsist.

basically you would have to be God in order to make sure God doesn't exsist.

So which God do you believe in? Is it the Abrahamic God?
So this subjective reasoning, is proof of an objective God? This doesn't make God's existence more credible.

so whats your first premise?

Basically, from another thread:

It is not plausible to arrive at such a conclusion without substantial evidence --evidense which is fully observable, and perhaps reproducible--. God is not observable by any means, therefore it is not possible to arrive at such a conclusion with utmost certainty. Such is the rational process that relies on logical and objective evidense, which lends a belief or assumption it's credibility. The existence of the Abrahamic God is no more credible than the existence of Zeus, or any other god or gods found in any religion and mythology.

If subjective, anecdotal evidense was credible, then every other god or gods must exist, since there is "proof" for them also.


Since the law of contradiction applies to the existence of God, there also must be an invisible pink unicorn. You would have to be the invisible pink unicorn, in order to make sure she doesn't exists. So, from you're logic, this must mean that the invisible pink unicorn exists also. And, if this does not, then explain to me why God exists and the invisible pink unicorn doesn't.

Oh, and please refrain from contradicting yourself.

 

[Ahmadi]

If the 2nd is used first, then there is nothing wrong with it. If it's the 1st, which leads to the 2nd, which backs up the 1st, then there's something wrong with it.

well, go ahead and use the 2nd first. But where are you going to start? My suggestion is to carefully analyze the revelations of the Quran and try to find the slightest hint of irrationality.

Yes... much like claiming: "I'm rich!" - and many other things in life. How certain you are about attaining this reward through this struggle, however, is what I'm questioning. The difference between saying "I'm rich!" and "I believe!" is that there is certainty that one could be achieved... the other is mere wishful thinking.

Once you have determined, through rationality, that the Quranic revelations are rational, everything else, including life after death, becomes believable. I admit that there is no evidence for the existence of life after death but such a belief in life after death only somes second to belief in God. In other words, belief in God, based on a rational analysis, comes first before other religious beliefs.

Much like pah, I believe that god was created by man. We have objective evidence to believe so, and as such, are fairly certain in our claim. Arguing the opposite of it, without evidence, is another reason I have a problem with belief.

okay... so use all the rationality you can come up with before believing.

 

[Ahmadi]

It is not plausible to arrive at such a conclusion without substantial evidence --evidense which is fully observable, and perhaps reproducible--. God is not observable by any means, therefore it is not possible to arrive at such a conclusion with utmost certainty. Such is the rational process that relies on logical and objective evidense, which lends a belief or assumption it's credibility.

There is no objective evidence for a whole lot of things but they exist. Just 500 years ago, folks like you said: "It's impossible to fly!" - because they did not have "objective evidence" but now we have the means to do so. They couldn't conclude 'with utmost certainty' that it's possible to fly... yet it happened... is this a miracle?

... there also must be an invisible pink unicorn. You would have to be the invisible pink unicorn, in order to make sure she doesn't exists.

There are other ways to determine the existence of God and not a pink unicorn. First of all, a pink unicorn doesn't have the intelligence to produce life as complex and as organized and perfect as it is. Second of all, a pink unicorn is hardly aware of its own existence... so, how can it create intelligent beings like humans and provide them with "consciousness". If there is something 'out there', then it very well isn't your conviniently placed pink unicorn.

 

[Ahmadi]

If subjective, anecdotal evidense was credible, then every other god or gods must exist, since there is "proof" for them also.

All I can say to the above statement is that your knowledge of religion is incredibly naive. Just try to look at the stories of their Gods and compare those to the Quran and you will see an incredible amount of difference. Rationality and the Quran vs. rationailty and the greek myths - oh, please don't tell me that it's the same.

 

[Tawn]

We are left with two options: a beginning, or no beginning. It makes more sense to me that there is one then there is not one.

Why does one make more sense than the other?

In science (if one is to take the hypotheses to be accurate) energy is constant. It cannot be created or destroyed, only transformed. All matter is essentially energy in one form or another.. so essentially our current understanding is everything exists indefinitely.
We have never witnessed the beginning or end of anything physical - so why then does it make more sense to you that the universe and everything physical (and maybe non-physical whatever that might be) .

Of course then again perhaps anti-matter may disprove all that... Or it may even be another level of transformation.

Isnt it more rational to just say 'I dont know'? ..and neither believe God doesnt exist or believe God does exist?
That position of course would make you a 'weak Atheist'.. often incorrectly (stricly speaking) referred to as an Agnostic..

Isn't life interesting?