The existence of god

[chaffdog]

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.

 

[Storm]

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

Your argument is far from convincing, not least becaus it completely ignores the neurology behind belief.

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.

Not all religions promise immortality. How do you explain them?

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.

1) "Goddidit" only works as an explanation if you already have a God-concept to work with.

2) This is where the neurology of belief really comes into play. Between the spandrel theory and the discoveries of neurotheology, it's becoming more and more obvious that we're hardwired to believe. Reality or neurological illusion, God was discovered, not invented.

Anyway, neither of your points really address the question of God's existence so much as people's motives for believing.

 

[chaffdog]

Not all religions promise immortality. How do you explain them?

They all provide some sort of comfort and reasoning as to why I exist and what I am doing here, which helps me deal with death.

"Goddidit" only works as an explanation if you already have a God-concept to work with.

Why? There is something I don't understand, so to explain it, I say perhaps there was a creator. The idea grows from there.

This is where the neurology of belief really comes into play. Between the spandrel theory and the discoveries of neurotheology, it's becoming more and more obvious that we're hardwired to believe. Reality or neurological illusion, God was discovered, not invented.

The fact that we may be hardwired to believe doesn't mean that there is something there for us to believe in. Stating that this proves or supports the existence of god is taking it beyond the facts of the discoveries. Perhaps we have evolved to believe because it leads to us leading happier, more productive lives, thus being more fit?

 

[Storm]

They all provide some sort of comfort and reasoning as to why I exist and what I am doing here, which helps me deal with death.

Now, that's just moving the goalposts. Besides, pilosophy can do that just as well. Hell, breeding provides such comfort.

Why? There is something I don't understand, so to explain it, I say perhaps there was a creator. The idea grows from there.

Because it would be pathetically obvious that you were just making up a story, and nobody would believe you. It only works in context.

The fact that we may be hardwired to believe doesn't mean that there is something there for us to believe in.

Now you're moving MY goalposts. I'm not trying to prove God's existence, I'm responding to your attempt to disprove it.

Stating that this proves or supports the existence of god is taking it beyond the facts of the discoveries.

Indeed. Good thing I made no such statement, huh?

Perhaps we have evolved to believe because it leads to us leading happier, more productive lives, thus being more fit?

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

You haven't really addressed my point, though: current science implies (at a minimum) that God was not invented at all. That kinda makes all your speculation as to how and why it might've been invented moot, to put it nicely.

 

[Runewolf1973]

It is "convenient" for humans to have belief in God. It is just a creation of Man's mind. Quantum physics understands more of reality. So did our ancient cave-dwelling ancestors who believed that all that existed was different forms of energy. Spirit. But that's my opinion.

 

[Storm]

It is "convenient" for humans to have belief in God.

Except when it isn't.

It is just a creation of Man's mind.

Prove it.

 

[S-word]

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.

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.

 

[Runewolf1973]

Except when it isn't.


Prove it.

A panentheist should understand that. What could be called "God" is all of existence. Therefore God in that sense exists, but God in the biblical sense that created "Adam and Eve" and caused the "Great Flood", is something Man created. But that is my opinion. I don't believe that "God" is a deity. "God" is the animate spirit energy of existence.

The following is quoted from Wikipedia...

"In panentheism, God is not exactly viewed as the creator or demiurge but the eternal animating force behind the universe, with the universe as nothing more than the manifest part of God. The cosmos exists within God, who in turn "pervades" or is "in" the cosmos. While pantheism asserts that God and the universe are coextensive, panentheism claims that God is greater than the universe and that the universe is contained within God. [2] Panentheism holds that God is the "supreme affect and effect" of the universe."

That is basically what I believe. I just find that when one uses the term "God", it is perceived by most as being "supernatural" or some deity. I do not believe that the "eternal animating force behind the universe" is supernatural. It exists and it is natural, and it encompasses more than just the universe.

 

[Storm]

A panentheist should understand that.

God, I hate it when people say that. For one thing, I am not your typical panentheist, that's why I put "rogue" there. For another, just because I have my own beliefs does not mean I have to belittle the beliefs of others. I could be wrong, they could be right.

What could be called "God" is all of existence. Therefore God in that sense exists, but God in the biblical sense that created "Adam and Eve" and caused the "Great Flood", is something Man created. But that is my opinion. I don't believe that "God" is a deity. "God" is the animate spirit energy of existence.

You are in a debate forum. If you're going to state something as a fact, you need to be prepared to back it up. You stated "[God] is just a creation of Man's mind." Back it up.

The following is quoted from Wikipedia...

Yes, I know what panentheism is, thank you. Now would you like to support your assertions?

 

[Runewolf1973]

God, I hate it when people say that. For one thing, I am not your typical panentheist, that's why I put "rogue" there. For another, just because I have my own beliefs does not mean I have to belittle the beliefs of others. I could be wrong, they could be right.


You are in a debate forum. If you're going to state something as a fact, you need to be prepared to back it up. You stated "[God] is just a creation of Man's mind." Back it up.


Yes, I know what panentheism is, thank you. Now would you like to support your assertions?

I never stated anything as fact. It is only my opinion. The ultimate truth of the matter cannot be expressed in words. Not even the word "God" can express it, not even the word existence. It is beyond all words and it is beyond human comprehension. I cannot define the indefinable. All I know is that it is there. As soon as you can define something it becomes "finite". What I believe in is infinite. Yes, this is a debate forum, so please don't jump on me for having an opinion. Can you support your assertions any more that I can assert mine? If I understood your beliefs wrong then I am sorry for that.

 

[Storm]

What assertions have I made?

 

[Runewolf1973]

Do you not have an opinion on the matter as well? Please explain what your belief says of the opening questions. All I have seen is how you dissect everyone else opinions on this thread sentence for sentence. It seems like rather than explaining your own standpoint, you would rather point out where others are wrong. I happen to agree with the opening poster's comments. That's all. What's wrong with that?

 

[Storm]

Do you not have an opinion on the matter as well?

Of course I have an opinion, but I don't pretend it's a fact.

Please explain what your belief says of the opening questions.

What questions? He presented an argument, I rebutted.

All I have seen is how you dissect everyone else opinions on this thread sentence for sentence. It seems like rather than explaining your own standpoint, you would rather point out where others are wrong. I happen to agree with the opening poster's comments. That's all. What's wrong with that?

It's a freaking debate forum! I'm debating.

 

[Runewolf1973]

No, your freaking.

 

[Storm]

Whatever. If you can't stand the heat, get the hell out of the kitchen.

 

[Runewolf1973]

:grill:What kitchen? Who's cooking? I like cooking, but there are those that just can't cook anything without burning it to a crisp.

 

[EtuMalku]

In order to prove or disprove this God thing, first a definition of God would be in order

 

[danny vee]

I'm not sure God can be defined, etumalku. God is true for some and not for others. He's real for some, for others He's just an imaginary figure. It depends what kinds of experiences you've gone through etc. For example, for people who have had religious experiences, God is quite real. For the atheist, He is not. The book by William James, "Varieties in Religious Experience" offers great examples.

 

[chaffdog]

I guess I was moving the goalposts a bit.

Because it would be pathetically obvious that you were just making up a story, and nobody would believe you. It only works in context.

OK, context: a bunch of people a while ago, with no real scientific concepts for creation, evolution etc, couldn't work it out, so they attributed it to a god or other being. They all believed it, because it was the only expliantion and they did it together.

current science implies (at a minimum) that God was not invented at all.

What current science? Personally I've not read this study, so if you're going to use science, cite your info. It is also usually dangerous to say science implies something - it sounds like you're bending the facts.

Except when it isn't.

It's still more convenient than the alternative. Example, by the way?

the singularity of origin by an eternal and unbroken genetic thread of life

At least on earth, life did not evolve until 10 billion years after the big bang, according to the current estimate.

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.

Here's the problem: There is nothing at all in the world that we can experience and observe that would suggest any of that is true. Therefore, it is logical to believe that it isn't. I do not disagree or agree with this belief, as there is no way to prove or disprove it, but it seems rather like this situation:
There is a brick wall on the earth that can't be seen through or around or over or under. You say, 'if you can prove to me that there isn't a huge alien with boggly eyes and large fangs etc.., I will believe that there is. (sorry for the seamingly harsh argument, but I don't know how else to put it)

What could be called "God" is all of existence.

But isn't that just giving the universe a different name?

 

[Storm]

OK, context: a bunch of people a while ago, with no real scientific concepts for creation, evolution etc, couldn't work it out, so they attributed it to a god or other being. They all believed it, because it was the only expliantion and they did it together.

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

What current science? Personally I've not read this study, so if you're going to use science, cite your info. It is also usually dangerous to say science implies something - it sounds like you're bending the facts.

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.

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

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

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.

It's still more convenient than the alternative.

Howso?

Example, by the way?

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

But isn't that just giving the universe a different name?

Depends on the details.

BTW, could you please not delete the quote attribution? It gets a bit confusing when you quote multiple posts.