No such thing as God.

[iconoclast]

DT,

I almost proposed it as a quid pro quo - contributing to the site for a day on the basis that I'm a believer, but i don't know how i could begin to address these issues without coming to despise a God who'd exacted such a high price for a single instance of disobedience, a God who would have us suffer the terrors and trials of reality when with a wave of his omnipotent hand they might be removed, a God who'd let good people suffer and die while the villianous prosper, a God who'd plant fossil fuels in the earth for us to find, and get addicted to in ignorance of thier climactic effects, a God who'd set one man against another like dogs in a pit. And toothache! What's that about???

God did occur to man as an explanation of man's existence. However, God's role was not, and is not, limited to an explanation of existence...

...but further proposed that the idea of God was employed as a common understanding and objective authority for law that enabled hunter-gatherer tribes to come togther without one tribe submitting directly to the rule of another.

I have to disagree here. I think you have it backwards. God was not an objective authority for the law...God was not used as a way for various tribes to come together, tribes come together when one dominates another.

The transition from hunter-gatherer tribes to multi-tribal and social ways of life couldn't have occured that way for any number of reasons. Imagine, you've got HG tribes - one tribes piles in, kills the menfolk and makes off with the women. They've now got to provide for these extra, unwilling people - but more than that, unless they want to suffer the same fate, they've got to up security. Enemies within - enemies without. That's no basis for a society.

No. You have to suppose some kind of consensual agreement - and because it's known that God is a concept central to the lives of socities throughout history, and around the world, it makes sense to suppose that sharing a God concept is how HG tribes came together in the fisrt place. Stonehenge - what's that about?

Otherwise, what's God for? Even if you suppose that God revealed himself to generation D, would generation E,F,G,H....Z still be banging on about it? Or would it be yesterday's news wrapped around tommorow's fish and chips.

Use of the term 'Lord, Our God' is not just a way of expalaining yesterday's news to the masses - it's a way of intertwining the power structrues of the state with divinity. It's a leftover from the feudal system and Coverdale's Bible - translated from the Latin for King Henry VIII.

I see science and religion has having entirely different concerns, and when religion takes on scientific concerns, that religious attempt is misguided and dangerous...Science does not give us means to cope with the passing of a friend; science explain the process of the friend's life and death, but offers nothing in the way of dealing with emotions. Science can explain the functioning of emotions (the various neural impulses in the brain, ect).

Science and religion are both worldviews with considerable overlap. They are approaches to understanding the world we live in - and because science proceeds on the basis of demonstrating hypotheses with reference to empirical evidence, rather than demanding faith in some unknowable, unquestiobale, absolute - scientific knowledge is more valid.

It would be crass in the extreme to try and console you in scientific terms for the passing of your friend. I don't seek to do so. But that's not because there's nothing to say. Individuals die, and the species lives on. That's the way it is and the way it must be if each subsequent generation is to evolve to enjoy the faculties that make life so bitter-sweet.

And why should we expect science to find evidence of God?

But if you look at what i actually said it was:

...human curiosity found science, but it didn't find so much as a fingerprint to indicate the exitence of God.

Thus where you say:

'There is no 'mountain of evidence based knowledge' that discredits the notion of God - again, science has no way of amassing evidence either for or against God.'

You either misunderstand or misrepresent me. I'm not suggesting that science can prove the non-existence of something that doesn't exist - what i'm saying is that human curiosity has certainly tried to prove the existence of God and failed to do so while a mountain of evidence based knowledge about the world amasses largely ignored for the sake of adherence to a concept that persists solely on skeptical grounds.

You go on to say that science has nothing to say about good or evil, beauty and so on. I disagree. If we consider the human being an evolutionary animal we can begin to understand good and evil as social constructs, and the golden mean - or golden section, 1:1.618, as drawing upon the proportions of the human face and body.

not all faith traditions required blind faith 'drummed into children before the age at which they can make reasoned judgments'

Christianity, Islam and Judaism certainly do, and i suspect that in practice, if not in principle, Bhuddism does too. But are there no 'coming of age' rituals in Bhuddism?

You find a valid criticism for one notion of God and make the mistake of applying that criticism to all notions of God. Straightforward logical fallacy.

When you say things like this it makes me laugh and cry, i would dismiss you as idiotic but it makes me furious that in all seriousness you have the temerity to propose and defend belief in the existence of some supernatural entity, without a shred of evidence, and then accuse me of logical fallacy.
As i have already indicated an inductive inferrence is jutified in this case as i have identified the origin of the concept in the evolution of man. Are you suggesting that primtive man got it wrong, Christianity, Islam and Judaism, they all got it wrong, but Bhuddism...now that's true!?

I have to begin to wonder if you can, if only for a moment, set aside those deeply held biases against religion at large, and consider the logic of my arguments thus far.

The idea of a car originated with man, but cars exist. The idea tree originated with man, yet trees exist.

The idea of unicorns originated with man, mermaids, ghosts, golblins, Gods... I'm sorry, but your capacity for logic seems somewhat undermined by your faith in that which cannot be shown to exist. As i've said, you might reasonably hope that God exists - but to belive something without evidence is illogical.

[iconoclast]

Zeth,

'The moment we think something is something, we are succumbing to ignorance.'

Science accounts for this in the systematic method by which it achieves knowledge - not truth, but knowledge. Knowledge is always open to improvement or disproof in relation to further evidence. We do have the ability to progress toward greater and more valid knowledge, but should never consider ourselves as having truth.

Lack of absolute truth isn't ignorance. Ignorance is lack of knowledge - or beliefe in falsity, but not lack of truth. There may be a cage even science cannot escape. I'm thinking about the indeterminacy principle in quantum physics. They say it actually is indeterminate, rather than due to an inability to observe - but i don't know. And that's okay. I have enough knowledge to understand the dimensions of the question and can therefore appreciate any evidence there might be, if and when it arises. I don't know, but i'm not ignorant.

[iconoclast]

Solace,

Yeah, i think hope is a much more reasonable premise for worship of a God that either doesn't exist or chooses not to be known. It doesn't require the bending of the reason to believe what cannot be known, but compliments the sane and reasonable desires of the individual. It doesn't infer any denial of the evidence of the senses, or science, in order to maintain this absolute, unquestionable truth. It's less passionate - but perhaps that's a good thing?

[Solace]

Hope is, in every viable explanation of the term, no less valuable than faith. I would say that hope is less easily manipulated than faith, at least in a religious sense, but that's a good thing. And yes, less passionate is also a good thing. The passions of man ever confound his reason.

I don't think that belief in God's existence is so much the problem, as is the belief that, if God exists, we must do something about it. If God created existence, I should think that he would require no more of his creation than simply to exist. Misconstrued notions of salvation prompt people to do a whole host of ridiculous and unreasonable things. If God wants his children to be saved, then it's up to him to save them. Otherwise he doesn't deserve to have his children saved. What I find very odd about people who believe that God exists, is that they seldom believe that, if he exists, he has a responsibility to his own creation. What sane man or woman who creates something isn't responsible for it? If we do, then why not God? That people try to absolve God of his responsibilities, tells me that, in truth, they don't really believe he exists at all, or, if he exists, then we need to treat him like an infant, because he's obviously not mature enough to take on any responsibility. I should think that, if God exists, he'd be rather insulted by anyone who thinks this way.

[Zetherin]

iconoclast,

"I almost proposed it as a quid pro quo - contributing to the site for a day on the basis that I'm a believer, but i don't know how i could begin to address these issues without coming to despise a God who'd exacted such a high price for a single instance of disobedience, a God who would have us suffer the terrors and trials of reality when with a wave of his omnipotent hand they might be removed, a God who'd let good people suffer and die while the villianous prosper, a God who'd plant fossil fuels in the earth for us to find, and get addicted to in ignorance of thier climactic effects, a God who'd set one man against another like dogs in a pit. And toothache! What's that about???"

Again, if there really were an omniscient God, it would not judge. Again, the concepts of good and evil are applied by us, humans. So, those villianous people you judge, aren't objectively villianous. They aren't villainous to the universe. So, every single deterrent you mention is negated. This is the thing that upsets me - when we try to personify a God. It is an idea that has been watered down to suit our needs, and this is the cage. If we really attempted to think logically about the existence of such a being, then I'd see no problem with any of this. But, humans stop as I noted. Thinking simply stops at certain places that one finds comfortable.

[Zetherin]

Originally Posted by Solace

Hope is, in every viable explanation of the term, no less valuable than faith. I would say that hope is less easily manipulated than faith, at least in a religious sense, but that's a good thing. And yes, less passionate is also a good thing. The passions of man ever confound his reason.

I don't think that belief in God's existence is so much the problem, as is the belief that, if God exists, we must do something about it. If God created existence, I should think that he would require no more of his creation than simply to exist. Misconstrued notions of salvation prompt people to do a whole host of ridiculous and unreasonable things. If God wants his children to be saved, then it's up to him to save them. Otherwise he doesn't deserve to have his children saved. What I find very odd about people who believe that God exists, is that they seldom believe that, if he exists, he has a responsibility to his own creation. What sane man or woman who creates something isn't responsible for it? If we do, then why not God? That people try to absolve God of his responsibilities, tells me that, in truth, they don't really believe he exists at all, or, if he exists, then we need to treat him like an infant, because he's obviously not mature enough to take on any responsibility. I should think that, if God exists, he'd be rather insulted by anyone who thinks this way.

No, he wouldn't be insulted, as he wouldn't judge. "It" would transcend our measly judgmental ideas. Here we go again personifying.

Not everything is like us, and for some reason it's awfully hard to grasp that.

I'm not trying to point either of you out personally, as I see this all the time.

[Solace]

"Not everything is like us..." well, here's the thing, we reason, and, we can assume, I should hope, that God reasons. In that way, at the very least, he, or "it" if you prefer, is like us. If you're going to say that God wouldn't judge, then you might as well say that God doesn't reason. Or are you saying that God can't reason?

So naturally we personify God. As we are the only beings in existence that we know of that do reason, why would we not familiarize a theorized being that can reason, such as God, to ourselves by personification? If our "measly judgmental ideas" are still reasonable, then exactly why wouldn't God share a reasonable judgement?

My point earlier was simply that people refuse to give God the credit due any rational, reasonable being, and you actually only expound it, by further derationalizing God.

[Zetherin]

Originally Posted by Solace

"Not everything is like us..." well, here's the thing, we reason, and, we can assume, I should hope, that God reasons. In that way, at the very least, he, or "it" if you prefer, is like us. If you're going to say that God wouldn't judge, then you might as well say that God doesn't reason. Or are you saying that God can't reason?

So naturally we personify God. As we are the only beings in existence that we know of that do reason, why would we not familiarize a theorized being that can reason, such as God, to ourselves by personification? If our "measly judgmental ideas" are still reasonable, then exactly why wouldn't God share a reasonable judgement?

My point earlier was simply that people refuse to give God the credit due any rational, reasonable being, and you actually only expound it, by further derationalizing God.

God wouldn't have to reason, it just is. It would be everything, every time, every place. That's why God wouldn't share a reasonable judgment. To share a reasonable judgment would place this being no higher than us. Our personification, in my opinion, is our way of trying to make sense of such a being, because we choose not to think further. Yes, it is natural that we personify God, I agree - but that doesn't mean it makes any sense.

And just in lamen's terms - I think it'd be frightening IF the being COULD judge. How can we say one person is more evil than another? We do based on the person's actions and our judgment of those actions. How is that fair? For instance, it is widely believed that Hitler was "evil". Where's the 'proof' in that? Sure, he murdered people, but many could make arguments saying the Pope is just as evil, or blah blah blah is such as evil because(). These are our own judgments based on things. A mystic, Daleth, once said,
"Too often we judge ourselves by our aspirations, and others by their deeds. Try doing the opposite and see how your views change." I'd tend to agree. But the point is, regardless of how we judge, we are judging and no, it doesn't mean it's necessarily "right" or "wrong".

Furthermore, in response to your last statement, there is no giving credit - again, that is a 'positive' concept derived from us. "It" just is every thing, every place, every time. Credit doesn't even make sense to give to such a being. To give credit would mean it would be a job well done, and judging the job is subjective...not objective. "It", if it created us, would transcend this thinking. And yes, I do feel it's trivial in the scheme of things.

As a side, I'd like to remind you once again that I'm not saying I transcend any of this - I still make the same judgments and so forth. So please don't think I'm trying to sound elitist as if I am above all of this - I'm clearly not. However, as an agnostic, I'd like to hope that, if there actually is an "it", it does transcend our sense of reason. It does transcend the way we judge.

[iconoclast]

Solace,

This thread is really about the impending extinction of humankind, rather than the non-existence of God per se. The issue of God's non-existence is important because it matters to our survival prospects what people believe. This is why faith is not merely misguided, but dangerously misguiding. Requiring people to belive what cannot be known undermines indivdual reason and undermines the enormous epistemological value of scientific knowledge.

I don't want to hurt people like yourself, but i won't let my species die for the sake of your emotional confort. You lose my compassion by pretending to agree and then stealing back as much ground as you can. I give you the hope and now you imply the equivelence of faith by saying 'hope is no less valuable than faith.' You misrepresent me and i won't have it.

Belife in God is problematic because it undermines reason, and undermines the epistemological value of scientific knoledge. You might hope that God exists without perverting your reason or undermining science, but beliefe is wrongheaded and informs a wrongheaded social, political and economic relation to knowledge. This will result in the extinction of the species if we don't get it right.

As it's overwhelmingly likely that the idea of God was invented by man - it's ridiculous of you to say

'If God wants his children to be saved, then it's up to him to save them.'

We human beings are a single species occupying a single planet - that's a fact we have a duty to acknowledge, and act in accord with, or we shall all die, absolutely and forever. It's our species, our planet, and our responsibility. You're just looking for an excuse to carry on as you are - by passing off your responsibilities on the sky God you're not even sure exists.

[iconoclast]

Thread Now Closed.