exile

After years of looking at this subject I've concluded that

1. It is possible to prove that God exists (eg if God appeared on CNN saying "Hello, I'm God" with suitable spectacular effects such as destroying all weapons of war, this would be reasonably convincing) - however there is no proof (eg the traditional ones such as the ontological proof, argument from design etc) that currently convinces me or has convincingly disposed of all possible atheist or agnostic arguments.

2. It is impossible to prove God does not exist. For example, God may have created the universe one second ago complete with all our own memories - how could this be disproved?

3. We are therefore left with trying to weigh the evidence, either from our view of the world, evidence from others (eg in scripture), personal "religious" experience and so on.

Since the real debate is all about (3), it becomes very much a personal thing, like politics - in short, one is convinced of the correctness of an idea by an emotional reaction to the way the world is; and then, post-hoc, tries to construct an intellectual argument to a. reinforce one's own belief and b. to try to influence others

Anyway an interesting question for me is WHY belief in god or gods exists?

To me, the clue is in the "argument from design". If one comes across something that is obviously an artefact - a watch - one assumes that someone (human) designed and made it.

The argument goes - the universe shows evidence of being designed - so someone designed it.

This, to me, is anthropomorphism. We see a complex, gigantic universe and infer that it was designed by a being, somewhat like us, but more powerful. Tales of the gods of Egypt, Greece, Rome and so on paint a picture of beings that are essentially human: the Old Testament God behaves in a very human fashion, showing anger, mercy, jealousy and so on. And of course Jesus is God in human form.

So don't we, as human beings, make a rather arrogant assumption that the universe was created by being(s) just like us?

SOme Christians argue that God is unknowable, moves in mysterious ways and so on but that is usually a way of trying to explain away God's tyrannical behaviour in the Old Testament.

If there IS a God, is there any reason to suppose He (????) resembles a human being in any way at all?

Wyz_sub10

Hi macaskil. Welcome!

I think the question of "why does one believe" is a tremendously important one. There are a few good books on the issues.

I would recommend Boyer's "Religion Explained" as a starting point. "Why People Believe Weird Things" by Shermer is also a good look at people's belief structures.

I do think, however, that #2 is not in the same boat as #1. I said this in a post a while back, but validating a "non-belief" is not the same as rationalizing a belief in something.

Have you considered the possibility that, to everyone else, dogs barking sound like "La Cucaracha"?

Have you considered the possibility that people walk around with no skin unless you observe them in some way?

Have you considered it's turtles all the way down?

Probably not. You feel no need to validate these non-beliefs. In fact, with an infinite number of combinations, you could not possibly validate all of your non-beliefs.

That is why those two sides of the coin do not have equal weight. The onus is on the individual making the claim.

fishbulb

Ironically, I noticed that the Star Trek episode that dealt with why this is incorrect was on just yesterday.

What this would prove is that there exists a being who possesses impressive powers and which claims to be God. No more, no less. It does not establish that anything written in the Bible, Quar'an, or Torah has any basis in fact, nor does it establish that this being had anything to do with any of those things. It does not establish that that being created the universe, or any of the other claims made about god. In fact, it is possible that there really is a god as described in the Bible (for example), but that this being is not that god.

Unless you define "god" as any being with powers you do not comprehend who claims to be god, simply appearing and performing magic tricks does not establish a being's status as god.

Proving the existence of god must begin with a coherent, concrete, and testable definition of "god." To the best of my knowledge, any god that has been defined in such a way has already been sufficiently disproved by pointing out serious inconsistencies between their claimed nature and observed fact. (I assume, for example, that someone has been to the top of Mt. Olympus, or at least taken aerial or satellite photographs, and noted the absense of any homes belonging to gods, or ruins thereof.)

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Macaskil,

Welcome!

I agree.

I can give you my thoughts on this.

The Bible says that God created us in His image. However, I believe this to be an allegorical phrase. It is symbolic in that we have freedom, emotion, substance and intellect. Morever, I think this mimics the underlying idea that God is (or can be) reflected in each one of us.

I don't think it need be intepreted as 'we look just like God does'.


Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

fishbulb

I would be interested in knowing why you believe that. The story of Genesis is over 3,000 years old. It dates back to a time when belief in anthropomorphic gods was the rule, rather than the exception. It seems to me that, if you wanted to get across the point that humans mirror god in their freedom, emotion, substance, and intellect to the people of that time, you would NOT say, "And God said, 'let us create man in our image, in our likeness'," because the people of three millenia ago would have almost certainly have interpreted that passage literally. If you wanted to make the point that God does not look just like a human being, it seems to me that you would have wanted to go out of your way to state that humans mirror God only with respect to their spiritual and mental qualities and not with respect to their physical form.

Doesn't it seem rather odd that the creators of Genesis would have chosen to use language that would have almost certainly been misinterpreted by the people it was intended to be told to (and, later, read by)? Isn't it a bit strange that people living more than three thousand years later would be able to correctly interpret a work that the people for whom it was written would have been misled by? Do you have any evidence to suggest that the Bible's authors meant a passage that has a clear literal meaning to be interpreted metaphorically, or that the people for whom it was written would have thought to do so?

It seems to me that, if the Bible was meant to be allegorical on this issue, we must conclude that the Bible was intentionally written to deceive the Israelites of its day. What do you think?

sandlewood

That thought raises a question in my mind. If man is made in God’s image in the sense of emotion and intellect, then why did the Fall happen? Why sin? If God is omnipotent and he intended to make human beings like himself, then they would be perfect, unless he intentionally made them deficient.

You might say that God gave humans freedom and that is the source of the Fall. But if humans were made in God’s image in terms of morality and intellect, then why would that happen even if with freedom? You might also say that humans were made in God’s image but that it is just a less perfect version. But then that would not be God’s image, so why can’t the Bible be clear? That would be an even looser interpretation. The phrase “less perfect” would be in question also. How does less perfect equate to “won’t listen to and follow God’s instructions”.

Sorry if I’m derailing the main topic; don’t mean to.

Biff the unclean

Anyway an interesting question for me is WHY belief in god or gods exists?

I would look no further than the collection plate.
Income without the need to supply a product. Tax exempt status. Civil law exempt status. Tithing (taxation without representation) faith gifts, donations, etc.

I remember once in the Philippines coming upon a church that was almost a cathedral in size. Marble facing, gold leaf, stained glass and mahogany furniture. It was in a village where most of the homes were shacks cobbled together out of scrap metal and cardboard.
That's why people sell God, so they don't have to live in squalid conditions.

Thomas Metcalf

Originally posted by macaskil :

I think there are really two questions here. First, there is the question of whether a being such as God could be disproven. I think there are two ways. On the one hand, the concept of God could contain an incoherence; if God is defined to be a married bachelor, or an omnipotent being who cannot do evil, then we know God cannot exist. On the second hand, the concept of God could predict something about our experience that fails to obtain. If God were defined to be a being who cares about humanity and doesn't want us to suffer, but widespread intense suffering exists, then that's reason to think God doesn't exist.

The other question is about the Russellian hypothesis in general, whether the world might have been created five minutes ago (or right now, "presentism"). This will be a problem for any epistemologist and I don't think it functions as a critique of positive atheism.

Fiach

[QUOTE]Originally posted by macaskil

This, to me, is anthropomorphism. We see a complex, gigantic universe and infer that it was designed by a being, somewhat like us, but more powerful. Tales of the gods of Egypt, Greece, Rome and so on paint a picture of beings that are essentially human: the Old Testament God behaves in a very human fashion, showing anger, mercy, jealousy and so on. And of course Jesus is God in human form.

Of course, all early religions invented gods who looked human with human personalities. Remember Zeus and Hera, Apollo, Jupiter, Mercury, Mars, Wodin, Thor, Dagda, Lugh, Danu, Venus, Diana, Ariadne, and JHWH were all superhuman beings. They are pictured as human. But most important is their human personality traits, or shall I say faults. JHWH was invented by cruel, violent desert nomads. As a result, JHWH is cruel, vindictive, carries grudges for generations, sadistic (creating Hell), homicidal, caparicious, jealous, narcissistic, unjust (inherited guilt), and given to fits of rage. He is like the very worst humans you know about. He is Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Genghis Khan, Timur-e-lenk added up and multiplied by a googolplex. That is the ultimate Anthropomorpic god. Mans worst nightmare.

So don't we, as human beings, make a rather arrogant assumption that the universe was created by being(s) just like us?

Spot on.

SOme Christians argue that God is unknowable, moves in mysterious ways and so on but that is usually a way of trying to explain away God's tyrannical behaviour in the Old Testament.

It is explaining it away and ending debate by saying that God is unknowable. The great intellectual cop out.

If there IS a God, is there any reason to suppose He (????) resembles a human being in any way at all?

None. That is relative evidence against him. If God is a superintelligence with no human traits (no jealousy, no hate, no rage, no narcissism, no capriciousness, no insecurity etc.) it would make more sense. But God could be a creator that is unconscious, non-cognitive, a grand unified field theory of forces that has a property of creating universes through a process unknown. Consciousness, cognition is an evolved trait of animals to find food, find mates, and avoid predators. Consciousness and cognition are just traits of animals that have evolved brains. There is no reason to apply such a property to stars, galaxies, the universe or whatever popped out the universe.

Fiach

Jobar

A good discussion here.

Sandlewood said
That thought raises a question in my mind. If man is made in God’s image in the sense of emotion and intellect, then why did the Fall happen? Why sin? If God is omnipotent and he intended to make human beings like himself, then they would be perfect, unless he intentionally made them deficient.

You might say that God gave humans freedom and that is the source of the Fall. But if humans were made in God’s image in terms of morality and intellect, then why would that happen even if with freedom?

I've often wondered why Yahweh left out wisdom when He made man 'in his own image'.

This is an argument I have never seen any Christian address. SOMMS, or any other theist- care to take a stab at it?