The God Problem.

[Hitokiri]

munter, you really should watch "the invention of lying"

I stay with my point that the entire story of god is a direct result out of believing in nature first, then creating multiple gods/demons and giving them traits out of nature to explain everything to then get to a single entity.

And all that starts with us humans.
I really don't think that a cow is going to form a religion...
It is our drive to want to explain everything since the beginning that has done so.
Why? we're an apelike species, and if you look at them, they're pretty crafty too, give it a few millenia and maybe they'll evolve too to a point where they get to philosophy and try to explain "life".

[Shadow00]

@Munter God is supposed to have allowed for bad thoughts and acts being made by people because if every person was perfect,then it wouldnt need a god,as they would be a god.

@Hito I so agree on that one...



The point is, it's all supposed to be "symbolical".
All religions in the very bottom line were created for 100% personal interests(such as conquering other countries etc),or for enforcing laws (if God said "and all people shall pay a 30% tax to each and every good", then most people would do so.)
These are just rough examples,but you get the main idea.

[mmm]

In answer to the earlier discussion, we know God is not a woman because we are not all sandwiches.

The concept of an all-powerful, completely good, and all-knowing God doesn't stand to human reasoning. Which leads to two conclusions; God doesn't exist, or God exists beyond human reasoning (i.e. human reasoning is incorrect). The latter assertion creates a dilemma: Does something exist if it is beyond our reasoning? Human reasoning is probably like human vision; just because I cannot see an amoeba does not mean they do not exist.

[Shadow00]

Ok,listen. If you take any person that has been deaf since they were born, then make an operation on them so they can hear,do you know what they'd do if the operation was successful? They'd ask,or even demand to return to their previous state,the one in which they could not hear. Why? Cause they wouldn't be able to get from the COMPLETE silence,to all those noises. They'd go crazy.
That's category 1, in which people can't stand the way others live,because they prefer their own way of living. And I don't blame them, cause that's the only way they can live.
Now category 2 is the one that concerns us.
People in category 2 are like the audience in a magician's show. At the end of each trick,they're all stunned, and act like they are trying to find the way the trick works. But actually, nobody is really searching because they dont want to learn the truth,as they may not be able to stand it. They want to be fooled.


In our case,we are category 2. We are all searching for the secrets of our(and every) religion,but we aren't really searching,as we don't want to know the truth,because the truth can make us all go insane. that's why only a few(less than 1% of the world) actually try and search for such answers.

[Munter]

Firstly, we'd need empirical evidence to say those who do gain the ability to hear after being deaf from birth do go insane. That is, cases where that has actually happened, and evidence that it happens frequently

When it comes to the magician example, who's to say we don't actually want to know how the trick is done?

Plus you're saying that we have a similar attitude to the meaning of life as we do party tricks, which is a difficult position to hold, I'd say.

Concerning the symbol comments, why use a symbol that leads to such inconsistencies?

It may well be the case that these things exist beyond human reasoning, however if they do, then we have no way of really knowing about it, so why should we spend time building societies and social orders based upon something we can not know exists because it is beyond our reasoning?

ALSO, if something is said to probably exist beyond human reasoning, it is just as likely not to exist beyond human reasoning, seeing as we have no reason to believe that there exists a realm beyond human reasoning. Although we cannot see the amoeba with out own eyes, reason has lead to us inferring it's existence and being able to see it with man made tools. Whereas no amount of reasoning of this sort would yield proof of the existence (or non existence) of God. So sight and reason is not the best comparison to make, one may argue.

It's an infinitely complicated subject, like everything in Philosophy is.

[Shadow00]

1. I used simplistic examples so the others can understand too.
2. If God is beyond human reasoning,then this topic is useless,as noone will ever be able to prove anything.All we will achieve is argue about conspiracies etc.

[mmm]

Shadow, I don't think that members of a game site will be able to simply resolve a mystery that has been debated since the dawn of modern man, but we can address inconsistencies in our own reasoning and walk away a little wiser.

The Southern Christian part of my typed the "probably" part. I agree that the odds are balanced.

So infinitely complicated that a large number of people choose to (blamelessly) blindly follow the easy option.

[Munter]

I'm afraid that if the examples are simplistic to the point where they lead to contradiction, they are examples inappropriate to use as rational argument.

Simple examples are the best examples, but they need to work.


Haha, if any of you ever do philosophy you'll soon realise that it's not about arriving at the answer, it's more about taking hold of what we do not know.

You'll notice that i'm not arguing that it impossible for God to exist, I'm arguing that the monotheistic concept of an all good, all knowing, all powerful entity existing is one that leads to contradiction, a contradiction that leads to it being impossible for this conception of a God to exist even conceptually.



Here's another question then:

If God does exist in some form, or if he does not, does our experience of the world change? Nope.

Now since this is the case, is there even any point in talking about God? Should we not be concerning ourselves with the world as we experience it? And lets leave out morality, because we do not need the concept of god to build a moral system (we can use rights theory, consequentialism, or a non-theistic virtue ethics)

This is the argument (very roughly) that A.J Ayer put forward, he's what you call a Logical Positivist. Out of interest.

[Hitokiri]

yes munt, watch "the invention of lying"

[Shadow00]

Munter, most people right now have morals because they believe they will go to hell (any kind of hell their religion talks about) if they go against the rules (any rules) a god has set. So here lies the greatest question. If tomorrow someone proves (impossible but it's an example) will people follow any rules? I'll tell you what will I think will happen. People that have been living their life as their religion told them so far,will do the exact opposite just to learn how it is. So in the bottom line, god is a part of our way of us experiencing the world,and god will always be one.

P.S. If I misunderstood your saying,please excuse me.