Why no God?

[ThePainefulTruth]

I have heard so many times from atheists, agnostics, etc.. that religion is a natural part of human evolution and we will evolve out of thinking there is a God or dogma.
Why?
There is no way to prove that statement.

With ancient tribes why would the name God, or any name for a Creator be mentioned?
I've heard people say it'd be natural to say someone made it, but why would they just think that?
Is it on a whim?
"Oh, I am here.. someone made here."
not a natural thought.

Native Americans that I have spoken with have some of the most beautiful spiritual knowledge and they even have mentioned what they simply call, "The Creator."

How could God just have been thought up if He wasn't real?
If we are beings that recycle the knowledge that is presented to us how can such an original idea just come out of no where??

Islam and all revealed religions are based entirely on ancient hearsay. That said, it doesn't mean that God doesn't exist, only that we have no evidence for or against It.

 

[blü 2]

I have heard so many times from atheists, agnostics, etc.. that religion is a natural part of human evolution and we will evolve out of thinking there is a God or dogma.
Why?

Because there's no definition of 'god' such that if we found a candidate, we could tell whether it was it a god (or God) or not.

This is part of a very large body of evidence pointing to the conclusion that gods are imaginary, exist only in the mentation of individuals. Imaginary gods have none of the problems of real gods, since imaginary gods can be whatever you want them to be.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I have heard so many times from atheists, agnostics, etc.. that religion is a natural part of human evolution and we will evolve out of thinking there is a God or dogma. Why? There is no way to prove that statement.

The statement doesn't need proving.

It's a speculation based on extrapolating evidence from the past into the future. Before the first wave of scientists, the ones such as Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Vesalius, Harvey, Bernoulli, Dalton, Avogadro, Priestly, Boyle, Coulomb, Lavoisier, Volta, etc., the workings of the world were explained as Apollo pulling the sun through the sky, Thor fashioning and throwing lightning and thunder from the heavens, various sprites and pixies animating the rivers and the wind, etc..

But because of these early scientists, our view of the universe evolved into that of a giant clockwork running on autopilot according to assorted rules and laws. No god was needed to account for the day to day motions of reality. Currents flowed through wires not because angels pushed it, but because of the nature of matter. The ruler god was no longer needed, but a creator god was still necessary to account for how the clockwork came to be. And thus, deism was born. A god built our world to run unsupervised, and then left it.

Next came a second wave of scientists like Hubble, the cosmologists, and Darwin, who explained how our universe could assemble itself from a hot, dense ball without intervention, and how an ancestral population of cells could generate the tree of life and the remains of the extinct forms we encounter. With this, the builder god disappeared as well. All that remained (and still remains) the origins problems - where did that primordial tiny universe come from, and where did that first population of replicators that evolved come from?

As the gaps for this god narrowed, it became apparent to many that there may be no need for any god hypothesis at all to explain any of this. We have naturalistic hypotheses for the origins problems - the multiverse and undirected, naturalistic abiogenesis.

From this comes the rise of atheism. In the United States, we have been tracking the steady rise of the "nones" and concomitant decline of those self-identifying with any god or religion. Within religion, there is a trend toward more Eastern theistic concepts, pantheism, New Ageism, assorted pagan and Wiccan "isms" - each also a step in the direction away from the anthropogenic god concept of Abrahamic monotheism - the all-powerful creator and ruler god..

Even the Abrahamics are softening under the influence of the progress of science. Christians are accepting evolution, rewriting their hell theology, and calling much of their scripture metaphor and allegory. Jews are rarely religious. Most I know are atheists.

All of these trends point in the same direction: the decline of religion in general as the march of science and understanding proceeds

It's pretty easy to extrapolate forward to a time of little or no religion, and to suggest that religion represents the phase in man's cultural evolution where he went from first being able to wonder and ask about where it all came from, to the time that he had his answers, answers which don't include gods.

We don't expect religion to disappear altogether, but to follow the path of say Druidism or Zeusism - once dominant worldviews in other times and places, but now hardly a blip on the radar. Many people don't realize that these traditions aren't extinct, that's how uninfluetial they are. That's what I see being the fate of religion in the West. The Eastern philosophies may remain influential longer, but most don't really resemble religion as I am accustomed to it here in the West in the first place. They seem pretty much like my own humanist worldview with a universal spirit of some sort added.

How could God just have been thought up if He wasn't real?

That's a remarkable question. How was Harry Potter thought up if he wasn't real?

One of the worst arguments for the existence of God is Anselm's ontological argument, which basically says that "if God is a being than which none greater can be conceived, then God cannot not-exist, or else we could conceive of a greater being-one that exists."

What?

 

[SalixIncendium]

How was Harry Potter thought up if he wasn't real?

Harry Potter is real. I have seven books that prove it!

 

[Mikail Hakeem]

It offers comfort, answers, and security. It can be very difficult for people to accept uncertainty, and to not have any answers. It makes people uncomfortable, and uneasy.

You personal experience isn't evidence for all. Many people have such experiences, and put their own culturally-appropriate/suitable labels on it.

Neither is your opinion... it may give comfort to some but it could also allow discomfort.
Fear of hell, disappointing God.. etc.
So to just say as a whole God was invented due to comfort I think is irrational.

 

[Mikail Hakeem]

People confidently believe things that are not true quite commonly.
That's why we distinguish between beliefs that are supported by evidence and those beliefs that are not. So we can get closer to the Truth and put less Faith in the fallible humans who are often mistaken.
Like prophets.
Tom

yep.. God has not been unproved and neither has the science that came with the Qur'an. So, this is why I have the belief.

 

[Mikail Hakeem]

Its easy to think up a god.

Heck, i can do that now. My god is 10 feet tall and you must say a prayer each time you burp. "God redeems your soul."

I'm still working on the holy scriptures so let me get back to you on that.

I am sure you can because the idea and concept has already been made relevant.

 

[atanu]

I have heard so many times from atheists, agnostics, etc.. that religion is a natural part of human evolution and we will evolve out of thinking there is a God or dogma.
Why?
There is no way to prove that statement.

With ancient tribes why would the name God, or any name for a Creator be mentioned?
I've heard people say it'd be natural to say someone made it, but why would they just think that?
Is it on a whim?
"Oh, I am here.. someone made here."
not a natural thought.

Native Americans that I have spoken with have some of the most beautiful spiritual knowledge and they even have mentioned what they simply call, "The Creator."

How could God just have been thought up if He wasn't real?
If we are beings that recycle the knowledge that is presented to us how can such an original idea just come out of no where??

Your questions are good and valid. I wish you best.

I personally often am in awe at the profoundness of guidance available in scripture and also at the accuracy of data in auxiliary scripture. My religion teaches that what is true never becomes untrue and what is untrue never becomes true. My religion teaches that 'knowledge principle and existence' are one and is the truth of all truths that is never and nowhere untrue in space-time, which is beginning-less and encompassed within knowledge principle. Competence to know (and information) is inherent and never dies.

With this understanding, both the profoundness of religions and the march of science are unified in me. In this understanding, God is the timeless knower of self. Prophets and sages are non dual, yet they manifest from time time.
...

 

[Mikail Hakeem]

Harry Potter is real. I have seven books that prove it!

apples and oranges..

 

[Mikail Hakeem]

The statement doesn't need proving.

It's a speculation based on extrapolating evidence from the past into the future. Before the first wave of scientists, the ones such as Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Vesalius, Harvey, Bernoulli, Dalton, Avogadro, Priestly, Boyle, Coulomb, Lavoisier, Volta, etc., the workings of the world were explained as Apollo pulling the sun through the sky, Thor fashioning and throwing lightning and thunder from the heavens, various sprites and pixies animating the rivers and the wind, etc..

But because of these early scientists, our view of the universe evolved into that of a giant clockwork running on autopilot according to assorted rules and laws. No god was needed to account for the day to day motions of reality. Currents flowed through wires not because angels pushed it, but because of the nature of matter. The ruler god was no longer needed, but a creator god was still necessary to account for how the clockwork came to be. And thus, deism was born. A god built our world to run unsupervised, and then left it.

Next came a second wave of scientists like Hubble, the cosmologists, and Darwin, who explained how our universe could assemble itself from a hot, dense ball without intervention, and how an ancestral population of cells could generate the tree of life and the remains of the extinct forms we encounter. With this, the builder god disappeared as well. All that remained (and still remains) the origins problems - where did that primordial tiny universe come from, and where did that first population of replicators that evolved come from?

As the gaps for this god narrowed, it became apparent to many that there may be no need for any god hypothesis at all to explain any of this. We have naturalistic hypotheses for the origins problems - the multiverse and undirected, naturalistic abiogenesis.

From this comes the rise of atheism. In the United States, we have been tracking the steady rise of the "nones" and concomitant decline of those self-identifying with any god or religion. Within religion, there is a trend toward more Eastern theistic concepts, pantheism, New Ageism, assorted pagan and Wiccan "isms" - each also a step in the direction away from the anthropogenic god concept of Abrahamic monotheism - the all-powerful creator and ruler god..

Even the Abrahamics are softening under the influence of the progress of science. Christians are accepting evolution, rewriting their hell theology, and calling much of their scripture metaphor and allegory. Jews are rarely religious. Most I know are atheists.

All of these trends point in the same direction: the decline of religion in general as the march of science and understanding proceeds

It's pretty easy to extrapolate forward to a time of little or no religion, and to suggest that religion represents the phase in man's cultural evolution where he went from first being able to wonder and ask about where it all came from, to the time that he had his answers, answers which don't include gods.

We don't expect religion to disappear altogether, but to follow the path of say Druidism or Zeusism - once dominant worldviews in other times and places, but now hardly a blip on the radar. Many people don't realize that these traditions aren't extinct, that's how uninfluetial they are. That's what I see being the fate of religion in the West. The Eastern philosophies may remain influential longer, but most don't really resemble religion as I am accustomed to it here in the West in the first place. They seem pretty much like my own humanist worldview with a universal spirit of some sort added.



That's a remarkable question. How was Harry Potter thought up if he wasn't real?

One of the worst arguments for the existence of God is Anselm's ontological argument, which basically says that "if God is a being than which none greater can be conceived, then God cannot not-exist, or else we could conceive of a greater being-one that exists."

What?

It definitely needs proving.. your OPINION may be that it doesn't but to me it does.
really.. Harry Potter?
Yes, someone in the 21 century can make fiction at ease bc its been well intune with their recycled experience.

 

[Mikail Hakeem]

Islam and all revealed religions are based entirely on ancient hearsay. That said, it doesn't mean that God doesn't exist, only that we have no evidence for or against It.

that is the opinion you are entitled to.
me.. if a book is beyond it's time I give credit where it is due.

 

[Mikail Hakeem]

Because there's no definition of 'god' such that if we found a candidate, we could tell whether it was it a god (or God) or not.

This is part of a very large body of evidence pointing to the conclusion that gods are imaginary, exist only in the mentation of individuals. Imaginary gods have none of the problems of real gods, since imaginary gods can be whatever you want them to be.

oh.

 

[SalixIncendium]

apples and oranges..

Indeed. Different in color, texture, taste, and appearance, but both are fruit.

 

[columbus]

Yes, someone in the 21 century can make fiction at ease bc its been well intune with their recycled experience.

True.
Just like a 7th century warlord and his followers could.
Tom

 

[Shadow Wolf]

So to just say as a whole God was invented due to comfort I think is irrational.

I didn't claim that "as a whole" god was invented to comfort people. I said it was one of a few reasons.

me.. if a book is beyond it's time I give credit where it is due.

Except the Quran isn't beyond its time. It's rife with scientific errors (such as, it claims sperm is created between the backbone and ribs), much like the Bible it promotes slavery and fails to condemn it, it says the sun sets in a muddy spring, and much like the Bible it strongly implies the world is flat - certainly a book that was ahead of its time for when the Quran was written would have avoided terms like "the earth spread out like a carpet" to avoid this ambiguity and would have explicitly states the spheroid shape of the planet.

 

[LuisDantas]

Neither is your opinion... it may give comfort to some but it could also allow discomfort.
Fear of hell, disappointing God.. etc.

Hardly any of that downside is not created - and, as a matter of fact, severely indoctrinated - by believers, so I don't think that is much of an argument.

So to just say as a whole God was invented due to comfort I think is irrational.

I have little notion of why you would.

yep.. God has not been unproved and neither has the science that came with the Qur'an. So, this is why I have the belief.

God does not have to be unproved, though. The duty of evidencing its existence falls squarely on the shoulders of those who would expect to convince others of that existence. Shades of Russell's Teapot.

As for science in the Qur'an, I don't think there is any. It has certainly not made itself evident, despite a lot of creative wishful thinking from many Muslims.

I am sure you can because the idea and concept has already been made relevant.

And from all appearances, it has ever been fictional or, at its best, symbolic / allegorical.

apples and oranges..

How do you know?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

God has not been unproved and neither has the science that came with the Qur'an. So, this is why I have the belief.

For the rational skeptic, it's the other way around, Gods have not been adequately demonstrated, so, like vampires and leprechauns, there is no reason to believe that they exist.

By your reckoning, you should also believe in vampires and leprechauns until they are disproven.

 

[suncowiam]

I am sure you can because the idea and concept has already been made relevant.

Relevance does not indicate a correlation. I can think up an infinite amount of imaginary beings.

Use what you want spiritually. That's your right to as an individual but to suggest the same beliefs on others I would say is unreasonable if the claims cannot be proven. I do not need to disprove them. You need to prove them.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The Eastern philosophies may remain influential longer, but most don't really resemble religion as I am accustomed to it here in the West in the first place.

At least in Japan, people don't use the term "religious" to describe themselves if they follow Buddhism, Shinto, Dao, or other traditional oriental views, and they would consider themselves non-religious. The term is pretty much reserved for those of a Western religion such as Christianity.

 

[Mikail Hakeem]

I didn't claim that "as a whole" god was invented to comfort people. I said it was one of a few reasons.

Except the Quran isn't beyond its time. It's rife with scientific errors (such as, it claims sperm is created between the backbone and ribs), much like the Bible it promotes slavery and fails to condemn it, it says the sun sets in a muddy spring, and much like the Bible it strongly implies the world is flat - certainly a book that was ahead of its time for when the Quran was written would have avoided terms like "the earth spread out like a carpet" to avoid this ambiguity and would have explicitly states the spheroid shape of the planet.

Well, my post was about the whole of God..
and no, I have heard all of that false information before. doesn't say flat and bad interpretation of all you mentioned.
there isn't any science error..